Student Scholarship

P



The academic journal of

P

 Vol 36, No 4 | Autumn 2022

CBE International Student Scholarship

3 Vindicating Bathsheba Amanda Pence

8 A Medieval Makeover:

Women's Roles Before and After the Reformation

Michele Arndt

12 Chinese Interpretations of Galatians 3:28: Ambiguities, Insights, and Paths Forward Yu-huei Huang

18 Paul's Concern for

Ephesus: A Survey of 1 Timothy 2:8–15

Eliza Stiles

23 Social Action and the

Canaanite Woman of Matthew 15

Molly Tomashek

27 The Ministry of Women

and the Merger of Church and State in FourthCentury Christianity Shelley Siemens Janzen

29 Book Review Valiant or Virtuous? Gender Bias in Bible Translation, by author Suzanne McCarthy and eds. Jay Frankel, Christy Hayhoe, and Ruth Hayhoe Reviewed by Michaela Miller

Priscilla and Aquila instructed Apollos more perfectly in the way of the Lord. (Acts 18:26)

I Tertius . . .

‘inappropriate relationship’, it’s not ‘having sex’, it’s not ‘having an affair’, it’s not ‘sleeping with’ when there is power involved.”

I am pleased that the lead article in this issue is about Bathsheba.

Why? Because Priscilla Papers has never published an article about her. To be sure, she has been mentioned here and there. And CBE has stood up for Bathsheba in its other publications (see, for example, “A Tale of Two Rapes: What Tamar and Bathsheba Teach Us About Power, Consent, and Sexual Violence,” an award-winning article by Erin Moniz in the summer 2019 issue of Mutuality). Nevertheless, “Vindicating Bathsheba,” by Amanda Pence, fills a gap in the Priscilla Papers index. I don’t point this out as a criticism—after all, I’ve been choosing those articles for over eight years. And I don’t mean to chastise earlier editors and authors. Who could have foreseen that, as complementarians and egalitarians developed and defended their positions over the last few decades, a battle line would be drawn between whether David and Bathsheba sinned together (the view of many complementarians) or David sinned against Bathsheba (the view of most egalitarians)?

Amanda, in her article beginning on the facing page, ably adds her voice to others who have spoken out for Bathsheba. I’ll list a few of those others below.

•

Carmen Imes, “Blame David, Not Bathsheba. The Prophet Nathan Did,” Christianity Today (July 18, 2022): “In the Book of Samuel, three key voices say he’s the guilty one, not her.”

•

Jeff Miller, “‘He will Take’: David and Bathsheba,” CBE’s blog (Dec 2, 2015): “It was a sin of power, committed by David against—not with—Bathsheba.”

•

Marg Mowczko, https://margmowczko.com/a-sympatheticlook-at-bathsheba/: “There is not the slightest hint of impropriety or guilt on Bathsheba’s part. . . . David alone is held accountable.”

•

Kylie Maddox Pidgeon, “Complementarianism and Domestic Abuse,” ch. 28 in Discovering Biblical Equality, 3rd ed. (IVP, 2021), 581: David “abused Bathsheba by taking her for himself, most likely raping her. . . .”

•

Cara Quinn, https://knowyourmothers.com/bathsheba-studyguide/: “Bathsheba . . . was spied on by King David. . . . She was taken by David’s messengers and forced into sexual relations with him.”

•

A. A. Anderson, 2 Samuel (Word, 1989), 153: “There is no real reason to assume that Bathsheba actually intended to be seen by the king.”

•

•

Sarah Bowler, “Bathsheba: Vixen or Victim?,” ch. 4 in Vindicating the Vixens, ed. Sandra Glahn (Kregel, 2017), 100: “We ought to call the situation what it is: rape of a subordinate by a man in power.”

Christine Woolgar, https://licc.org.uk/resources/accountabilityabuse-and-awareness/: David “abused his position to have sex with Bathsheba and then murdered her husband Uriah by proxy. . . .”

•

Philip Esler, Sex, Wives, and Warriors (Cascade, 2011), 314: “The emphasis is upon David as the agent. . . .”

•

Sheila Wray Gregoire, https://baremarriage.com/2019/10/ david-raped-bathsheba-interpretation-important/: “It’s not an

Though Amanda’s article has prompted this editorial, all the items in the following pages are high-quality and worthy of your careful consideration. Furthermore, all the articles were written by graduate students, hence the theme of the issue, “Student Scholarship.”

. . . greet you in the Lord.

DISCLAIMER: Final selection of all material published by CBE International in Priscilla Papers is entirely up to the discretion of the publisher, editor, and peer reviewers.

Please note that each author is solely legally responsible for the content and the accuracy of facts, citations, references, and quotations rendered and properly attributed in the article appearing under his or her name. Neither CBE, nor the editor, nor the editorial team is responsible or legally liable for any content or any statements made by any author, but the legal responsibility is solely that author’s once an article appears in print in Priscilla Papers.

Editor: Jeff Miller Associate Editor / Graphic Designer: Theresa Garbe President / Publisher: Mimi Haddad President Emerita: Catherine Clark Kroeger† Consulting Editor: William David Spencer Peer Review Team: Katrina Armas, Joshua Barron, Lynn H. Cohick, Havilah Dharamraj, Tim Foster, Nijay Gupta, Susan Howell, Loretta Hunnicutt, Kyong-Jin Lee, Esau McCaulley, Adam Omelianchuk, Chuck Pitts, Angela Ravin-Anderson, Marion Taylor, Karen Strand Winslow On the Cover: CBE 2022 International Conference presenters.

Photo contributed.

Priscilla Papers is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database® (ATLA RDB®), http://www.atla.com, in the Christian Periodical Index (CPI), in New Testament Abstracts (NTA), and in Religious and Theological Abstracts (R&TA), as well as by CBE itself. Priscilla Papers is licensed with EBSCO’s fulltext informational library products. Full-text collections of Priscilla Papers are available through EBSCO Host’s Religion and Philosophy Collection, Galaxie Software’s Theological Journals collection, and Logos Bible Software. Priscilla Papers is a member publication of the American Association of Publishers.

2

• PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022

Priscilla Papers (issn 0898–753x) is published quarterly by CBE International 122 W Franklin Avenue, Suite 218, Minneapolis, MN 55404–2451 www.cbeinternational.org | 612–872–6898 © CBE International, 2022.

cbeinternational.org

Vindicating Bathsheba Amanda Pence

Boast no more so very proudly, Do not let arrogance come out of your mouth; For the Lord is a God of knowledge, And with Him actions are weighed.

1 Samuel 2:31 The evangelical church is in an “age of reckoning.”2 Russell Moore described the recently revealed sexual abuse in the Southern Baptist Convention as an “apocalypse.”3 How did we get here? In recent years, some sources have explored powerful celebrity pastors who have abused and controlled others for their own fame and fortune.4 In hindsight, we can often see a lack of character in certain aspects of their lives.5 However, in light of the revelation of sexual abuse by leaders who, seemingly, acted as though they were truly devoted to the Lord, we must grapple with the reality that no one is immune from sin.6 The Bible tells us about a man after God’s own heart (1 Sam 13:14, cf. Acts 13:22) who committed these same abuses of power: David.

1Then it happened in the spring, at the time when kings go out to battle, that David sent Joab and his servants with him and all Israel, and they destroyed the sons of Ammon and besieged Rabbah. But David stayed at Jerusalem.

2Now when evening came David arose from his bed and walked around on the roof of the king’s house, and from the roof he saw a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful in appearance. 3So David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, “Is this not Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?” 4David sent messengers and took her, and when she came to him, he lay with her; and when she had purified herself from her uncleanness, she returned to her house. 5The woman conceived; and she sent and told David, and said, “I am pregnant.”

(2 Sam 11:1–5) Tragically, unfounded accusations have been lobbed at Bathsheba, with devastating consequences. Though refusing the king was not a viable option, especially since her husband and “all Israel” (2 Sam 11:1) had gone away, scholars, pastors, and popular resources have subjected her to all manner of speculation. There was no one to protect Bathsheba or come to her aid when David determined to take her. Yet, assertions blaming the victim proliferate, thus establishing social mores that allow predators to flourish.

The speculation surrounding the story of David and Bathsheba in 2 Sam 11–12 has contributed to a culture in the church where certain male leaders are given near-absolute power, while women are dehumanized and silenced. Contrarily, if we wish to create

cbeinternational.org

a culture within the church where women and men thrive as equals, we must actively promote an interpretation of the story of David and Bathsheba that affirms Bathsheba’s innocence by acknowledging the imbalance of power between them.

Torah Observance in OT Narrative To remedy these problems, the first step is recognizing that OT narrative must be interpreted in light of the Torah. In any given story, the characters that followed the directives of the Torah were righteous, while characters who operated against the guidance of the Torah were unrighteous.7 In 2 Sam 11:1–5, Bathsheba was the Torah-following, upright player, while David succumbed to the allure of power and thus opposed the Torah.

The purpose of this narrative is to describe David’s sin and turning point. The books of 1 and 2 Samuel are one literary unit detailing the rise and fall of Saul and then of David.8 This episode is the critical turning point in David’s story. Within 2 Sam 11– 12, the author utilized a chiastic structure to emphasize the key point:9 “the thing that David had done was evil in the sight of the Lord” (2 Sam 11:27). He was the one corrupted by power, taking advantage of the vulnerable and using those close to him to cover it up.

The actions in this narrative were driven by David.10 He “saw” (ra’ah) someone who was “good/beautiful” (tov), “and he took” (laqakh) her. Second Samuel 11 recapitulates Gen 3. In the garden, the woman “saw” (ra’ah) something that was “good/ beautiful” (tov), “and she took” (laqakh) it.11 David directly opposed Torah instruction by coveting his neighbor’s wife and committing adultery (Exod 20:14, 17; 2 Sam 11:2, 4). Continuing the recapitulation of Gen 3, David attempted to cover and hide his sins. He called Uriah back from the war, hoping that Uriah would sleep with Bathsheba and obscure David’s misdeed. However, Uriah refused (1 Sam 21:5, cf. Lev 15:18, Deut 23:10). Escalating the attempts to hide his trespasses, David again scorned the law of God by ordering the death of Uriah (Exod 20:13, 2 Sam 11:14–15).

The Israelites had been warned that the king would “take” (laqakh) the “best” (tov) of all they had. In 1 Sam 8, Israel gathered and said to Samuel: “. . . appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.” . . . The Lord said to Samuel: “Listen to the voice of the people . . . they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them. . . . solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.” (1 Sam 8:5b–9)

PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022 • 3

Thus, Samuel warned the people: The king will “take your sons” (8:11), “take your daughters” (8:13), “take the best [tov] of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves” (8:14), “take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards” (8:15), “take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys” (8:16), “take a tenth of your flocks,” and finally, “you yourselves will become his servants” (8:17).

Even with this warning, “the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said ‘No, but there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles’” (1 Sam 8:19– 20). David became the king who takes.12 Another significant action performed by David is that he “sent” (shalakh) others to do his bidding.13 He “sent” Joab and “all Israel” to fight his battle, contra to what the people were hoping a king would do for them. He “sent” messengers to inquire about the woman, then “sent” them to bring Bathsheba to him. He “sent” to Joab to request that Uriah be “sent” to David, a request which was granted. When plots to manipulate Uriah proved unsuccessful, David “sent” a message to Joab instructing that Uriah perish in battle. After Bathsheba mourned her husband, David “sent” for her to become his wife. David was the one with power and authority. The warning from 1 Sam 8:17 was fulfilled: all Israel became his servants, obeying whatever he sent them to do. Not even Joab, the commander of the army, dared to defy David’s suspect instructions. All the people were subject to their king, as Samuel had warned.

The few actions Bathsheba performed, on the other hand, were Torah-positive (2 Sam 11:2, 4, 5, 26). First, she was “bathing” as part of a religious exercise, a ritual cleansing. When David sent for her, she went with the messengers. After David took her, she “purified herself from her uncleanness” and “returned to her house.” When she discovered she was pregnant, she sent word notifying David of the situation. Finally, after her husband died, she mourned for him. Her actions were in line with Torah instruction, and there is no indication that she intended or even consented to engage in sex with David.

In 2 Sam 11:2 we read, “Now when evening came David arose from his bed and walked around on the roof of the king’s house, and from the roof he saw a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful in appearance.” His reasons for meandering to-andfro14 on his roof that evening remain a mystery to the modern reader.15 What we do know is that David “saw” (ra’ah) a woman who was “very” (me’od) “beautiful/good/the best” (tov). This phrase is descriptive and does not indicate a flaunting of beauty.

The tree in the garden was “good” (tov, Gen 3:6). Rebekah, as a more similar example, was described as “very” (me’od) “beautiful” (tov, Gen 24:16) while she was simply carrying a jug to draw water (Gen 24:15).

In our introduction to Bathsheba, we see one who is living as a righteous follower of Torah: she was bathing. In Leviticus, the Torah instructs that a woman shall continue in her menstrual impurity for seven days. . . . Everything also on which she lies . . . and 4

• PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022

everything on which she sits shall be unclean. Anyone who touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water and be unclean until evening. (Lev 15:19–21) Due to this directive, evening was a normal time for women to bathe from menstrual impurity. Additionally, ritual purification included washing clothes and bedding. This may have been done in private courtyards or publicly, near the water source.16 Since communities in the ancient Near East were communal, there is a possibility that women worked together to perform these duties.

David may have observed a group of women bathing themselves and doing laundry. Whether or not she was in a group, Bathsheba was indeed going about her monthly routine, faithfully following the law of the Torah. This adherence to the teachings of Torah illustrates her position as one who is righteous.

Some sources, however, assert that Bathsheba bathed with the intent to seduce David.17 One scholar goes so far as to claim that she intentionally “moved in next door” to King David for the express purpose of exposing herself to him in a bid to improve her social status.18 This speculative reading neglects the importance of her familial credentials listed in 2 Sam 11:3: “Is this not Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?” Bathsheba was someone’s daughter. Bathsheba was someone’s wife. To an English speaker’s ears, “Bathsheba” sounds like a play on words related to her bathing. But bath/bat in Hebrew means “daughter.”

The Hebrew says bath-sheba bath-eliam esheth uriyah (“. . . wife of Uriah”). “Daughter . . . daughter . . . wife.” It was significant for a woman’s patronymic to be included,19 and this set of three familial names in a row is emphatic. Her father, Eliam, and her husband, Uriah, were both among David’s mighty men (2 Sam 23:34, 39). Eliam’s father was Ahithophel, one of David’s advisors (2 Sam 15:12, 23:34). Furthermore, she was not only someone’s daughter, she was “the best” (tov) of daughters. Bathsheba was an upstanding citizen who belonged to a significant family. There is no indication that she was seeking to improve her socioeconomic status through seduction.

After inquiring about her, “David sent messengers and took her, and when she came to him, he lay with her” (2 Sam 11:4a).

David “sent” messengers and “took” her.20 Both verbs, “sent” and “took,” are grammatically masculine and singular; both were performed by David. In the Hebrew, the term “came to” (feminine singular) was performed by Bathsheba. Since the text explicitly states, “and he lay” (masculine singular), the proper interpretation of “she came to him” is simply that she literally walked with the messengers to the palace. “She came to him” does not signify mutuality or consent to the intercourse. Messengers arrived with instructions from the king to go to the palace, and she complied.

Interestingly, certain Greek manuscripts of 2 Samuel read “he went in to her” where English Bibles (representing the Hebrew text) have “she came to him.”21 It appears that the Greek translators, or perhaps a Hebrew reading now lost to us, understood the actions to be David’s and thus clearly stated that this was David’s sin and that Bathsheba was not a consenting, independent agent.

Moreover, the introduction to Ps 51 indicates that it is “a Psalm of David . . . after he had gone in to Bathsheba” (italics added).

cbeinternational.org

The Psalm also specifies masculine singular action. There is no indication that Bathsheba moved sexually toward David. The focus is on David’s exploitation of Bathsheba. He “saw” a woman who was “beautiful,” he “sent” for her, he “took” her, and he “lay with” her.

Second Samuel 11:4 continues: “and when she had purified herself from her uncleanness, she returned to her house.”

Grammatically, the participle “she had purified herself” is reflexive, self-directed, hence the presence of “herself” in English translation. This participle is feminine and singular, leaving no doubt that the action was performed by Bathsheba, not David.

The phrase can rightly be translated parenthetically, referring to v. 2, as in the NIV: “(Now she was purifying herself from her monthly uncleanness),” or as in the NASB, as a new action: “and when she had purified herself from her uncleanness.” The ambiguity of the grammar in Hebrew leaves the timing of the action open for interpretation.

The Torah sheds light on why Bathsheba may have purified herself after intercourse: “If a man lies with a woman so that there is a seminal emission, they shall both bathe in water and be unclean until evening” (Lev 15:18). Ever religious, Bathsheba followed Torah instruction to purify herself after copulation. She was likely purifying herself from uncleanness both at the beginning of the story and again after David took her, an interpretation supported by the fact that the verb is a participle and can indicate a process.

At no point does the narrative indicate that she stopped being purified. Finally, “she returned to her house.” She did not try to secure a place in the palace, as suggested by some sources.22 When she discovered that she had conceived, she sent a message to David: “I am pregnant” (2 Sam 11:5). It is a simple statement of fact. Some sources insist she should have notified Uriah instead of David,23 but this suggestion ignores that Bathsheba likely did not have authority to send a message to the battlefront. It fails to account for the cultural context. She was a Torah-observant woman in a Torah-observant community and recognized that she could be killed if the king did not intervene and take responsibility for his actions: “if a man is found sleeping with a married woman, then both of them shall die” (Deut 22:22).

Guilt and Consequences The Lord saw David’s evil actions and sent Nathan who confronted him with a parable about a rich man representing King David, a poor man representing Uriah the Hittite, and a ewe lamb representing Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah (2 Sam 12:1–4).

One would expect David, the shepherd king, to fiercely protect the “sheep” entrusted to him (1 Sam 17:34–36). Scholars concur that, “in the ancient Near East, the king was to protect the socially weak.” Thus, his “crime involved an abuse of power.”24 Paradoxically, it was the Hittite, not the Israelite king, who was the good shepherd. The “poor man,” Uriah, “nourished” the one in his care. He brought her in, fed her from his own table, and loved her as a daughter (2 Sam 12:3). This use of “daughter,” bath, recalls Bathsheba’s name and familial credentials in 11:3. Illustrating Bathsheba as a “ewe lamb” further proves her innocence, since

cbeinternational.org

ewe lambs were used for sacrifices of purification (Lev 14:10), and corroborates the premise that Bathsheba was purified from uncleanness throughout and beyond the story (2 Sam 11:4). Even after being taken, she was referred to as a symbol of purity and as a daughter. Bathsheba was not cast out of the community.

She continued to belong in and to her family. To emphasize this connection, later passages refer to Bathsheba as the “wife of Uriah” (2 Sam 12:10, Matt 1:6).

Upon hearing Nathan’s story, David, for the first time in this narrative, revealed a desire to follow Torah instruction, saying: “he must make restitution for the lamb fourfold” (Exod 22:1, 2 Sam 12:6). Nathan declared: “You are the man!” (2 Sam 12:7).

David realized he had “sinned against the Lord” (2 Sam 12:13).

As recorded in Ps 51, David called upon the compassion of the Lord, requesting to be cleansed from his sin. David’s life was spared, but his son died instead (2 Sam 12:13–14). The death of the infant was a consequence of David’s sin; the child died instead of him.25 It was not a punishment or indictment of Bathsheba, as suggested by a notable Christian educator and pastor.26 Further, Nathan shared that “the sword shall never depart from your house” and that the Lord would “raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun” (2 Sam 12:10–12).

As foretold, Absalom, David’s son, conspired to usurp the throne and drove David out of Jerusalem. He appointed Ahithophel, Bathsheba’s grandfather and David’s former counselor, as his own advisor (2 Sam 15:12). On Ahithophel’s advice, Absalom “pitched a tent . . . on the roof,” the very roof where David espied Bathsheba, “and Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel” (2 Sam 16:21–22).

David’s sins could not be hidden from God, nor were his actions free from consequences. Jesus said, “There is nothing covered up that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known. Accordingly, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in the inner rooms will be proclaimed upon the housetops” (Luke 12:2–3).

Beginning in the garden (Gen 3), the sins of humanity have reverberated throughout history. Paul wrote, “Just as through one human being sin came into the world, and death came through sin, so death has come to everyone, since everyone has sinned” (Rom 5:12 CEB). David’s secret rape of Bathsheba directly led to the public rape of ten other women (2 Sam 15:16). Sin begets sin. All humans, no matter how devoted to the Lord they appear, continue to pridefully “take” what seems “best/good/beautiful” to them, continually spreading death to others.

One further theme of 1 and 2 Samuel is that the Lord exalts the poor and humble and brings low the rich and powerful (1 Sam 2:7–8). Bathsheba was lowly and mourning after the loss of her husband and infant. However, God exalted her by providing a son, Solomon, a king who would be included in the messianic line. It was not through her own striving that she and her son became exalted;27 rather, it was Nathan who initiated

PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022 • 5

the conversation to ensure Solomon’s kingship (1 Kgs 1:11–14).

Ultimately, God remembered her, cared for her, and redeemed the situation.

The Church’s Response The tale of David and Bathsheba reminds us of the sins of humanity reverberating, recapitulating throughout history.

It reminds us that sin cannot be hidden from the Lord, and that he exalts the humble by redeeming what has been broken.

Instead of emphasizing these points, however, many evangelicals have weaponized this story to promote the “virtue” of women’s modesty. They have ignored the power dynamics at play, thus silencing victims of abuse by church leaders. They have exalted the powerful, and further oppressed the weak.

One popular author exhorts: For our safety, we women need to try to keep the men around us from temptation. Unfortunately, as we know, we can cause lust in a man, without realizing it. But we need to take responsibility for anything we might do to cause trouble.28 A pastoral resource ponders: “Although David was to confess that his foul sin was his, and his alone, one wonders how far Bathsheba was the accomplice in such a sin, as well as its provocation.” This same author then suggests Bathsheba should have been more “careful” and “modest.”29 When women are taught that they can cause men to sin by their mere existence, they live in constant fear that they will cause someone else to fall into sin. Women become mere objects of temptation to be hidden away, rather than fully human image-bearers of God. The charge to constantly be “careful” and “modest” plants seeds of deep anxiety in faithful believers. When women pour all their attention into protecting men from temptation, and themselves from potential sexual assault, no one thrives.

Another malformed application is that a woman, or anyone confronted with unwanted sexual advances, needs to “just say no.”30 This application neglects the power imbalance between a king and a subject in the text and the power imbalance between a religious leader and a congregant in the modern context. In situations where one party is stronger and more powerful and determines to abuse, even rape, the other, it does not matter whether the weaker party says “no.” They will be coerced or forcibly overtaken. This directive discourages victims from coming forward and assures them that if they speak up in the church, their concerns will be dismissed. It also fills the soul of the weaker party with guilt over not having been able to prevent the assault.

In the same vein, some suggest Bathsheba should not have told David about the pregnancy.31 This approach to the text discourages victims from holding perpetrators accountable.

We are concerned about damaging the reputation of our leaders and their ministries, so we assist them in hiding their sins.

Encouraging a lack of accountability enables abusers to target new victims; indeed, it actively protects sexual predators and furthers their impunity.

6

• PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022

Like those who have gone before us, we may think we— rather than Christ—can determine what is good. We, as church communities, commit the same error the Israelites made in 1 Sam 8. We reject Jesus as king and appoint for ourselves new “kings” to do the work that we are called to do ourselves. Even when we choose a leader based on their heart, like David, we discover that seemingly gentle and humble people are capable of committing such heinous acts as sexual abuse (1 Sam 16:7, cf. Matt 11:29).

When news breaks that one of our “sages in the way of Jesus had been a serial sexual abuser,”32 we must turn to the story of David, who used his power to take what was not rightfully his. Over and over, no matter how many “good” things an individual does, across time and culture, humanity demonstrates that “all have sinned” (Rom 3:23). Nevertheless, we hand other broken, human agents exceptional power by giving them our blind trust. We go where we are sent, following their instructions and never doubting their motivations. We assist them in covering up their sins to “protect” God’s reputation.

God does not need his reputation protected. He included all the horrible things his followers did in the Bible! The story of David and Bathsheba is not about being more modest, or about exhorting the weak to resist the strong, or about maintaining the illusion of a religious leader’s perfection. It is to remind us that even someone after God’s own heart, someone who seemingly did everything right, was not immune from the sins of humanity.

It reminds us of our own sins, our own lust for power and significance. This story should lead us to the cross.

If we truly want to cultivate a culture in our church where women and men thrive as equals, we must stop blaming victims.

We must listen when someone comes forward, believe that they are acting in good faith, and investigate. No matter how we perceive the accused, we must not dismiss charges flippantly. We need to hold people accountable for their own actions, instead of expecting women to take responsibility for the purity of the men around them. We need to stop cruel speculation of Bathsheba, which signals to victims, and potential victims, that the church is not a safe place.

Finally, we must stop demanding and expecting perfection from our leaders, which creates pressure to cover up every error.

No one is without temptation, brokenness, and sin. Rather than attempting to hide these things, we must bring to light our own community’s frailty and transgressions. We must proclaim from the housetops that we are sinners and need a Savior. We must shout it from the rooftops that we all need Jesus, and he alone is our king.

Notes 1. Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced employ the 1995 NASB. A “literal” translation is best for making clear certain aspects of this article that are based on details of Hebrew wording.

2. Jamin Goggin and Kyle Strobel, The Way of the Dragon or the Way of the Lamb (Thomas Nelson, 2021) 143.

3. Russell Moore, “This is the Southern Baptist Apocalypse,” CT (May 22, 2022), https://christianitytoday.com/ct/2022/may-web-only/ southern-baptist-abuse-apocalypse-russell-moore.html.

cbeinternational.org

4. See Goggin and Strobel, The Way of the Dragon or the Way of the Lamb; Erik Petrik, The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill, CT, podcast audio (June 2021), https://christianitytoday.com/ct/podcasts/rise-and-fall-of-marshill/; Jennifer McKinney, “Sects and Gender: Reaction and Resistance to Cultural Change,” Priscilla Papers 29/4 (Autumn 2015) 15–25; Scot McKnight and Laura Barringer, A Church Called Tov: Forming a Goodness Culture That Resists Abuses of Power and Promotes Healing (Tyndale Momentum, 2020).

5. Kyle Strobel, Introduction to Spiritual Theology and Formation class lecture, Talbot School of Theology (Fall 2021).

6. Goggin and Strobel, The Way of the Dragon or the Way of the Lamb, 152.

7. Brandon Cash, Hermeneutics and Bible Study Methods class lecture, Talbot School of Theology (Fall 2021).

8. Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, NAC 7 (Broadman & Holman, 1996) 17.

9. Ronald F. Youngblood, 1 and 2 Samuel, rev ed., EBC (Zondervan, 2009) 3.

10. P. Kyle McCarter Jr., II Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, AB 9 (Doubleday, 1984) 288; Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 364.

11. Zach Zienka, personal conversation, May 13, 2022.

12. McCarter, II Samuel, 290.

13. V. Philips Long, 1 and 2 Samuel, TOTC 8 (InterVarsity, 2020) 360.

14. Long, 1 and 2 Samuel, 361.

15. McCarter, II Samuel, 289.

16. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 364.

17. Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes (InterVarsity, 2008) 40; Herbert Lockyer, All the Women of the Bible (Zondervan, 1991) 35; Harold J. Ockenga, Women Who Made Bible History (Zondervan, 1962) 114; Ruth A. Tucker, Dynamic Women of the Bible (Baker, 2014) 170.

18. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, 41.

19. McCarter, II Samuel, 285.

20. Long, 1 and 2 Samuel, 361.

21. McCarter, II Samuel, 279.

22. Tucker, Dynamic Women, 171; Lockyer, All the Women, 35.

23. Ockenga, Women Who Made Bible History, 115; Liz Curtis Higgs, Really Bad Girls of the Bible (WaterBrook, 2007) 158; Kathy Collard Miller, Women of the Bible (Starburst, 1999) 216.

24. V. Philips Long, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: 1 & 2 Samuel (Zondervan, 2009) 459; Bill T. Arnold, 1 & 2 Samuel, NIV Application Commentary (Zondervan, 2003) 540–41.

25. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 373.

26. Ockenga, Women Who Made Bible History, 115–16.

27. McCarter, II Samuel, 288.

28. Miller, Women of the Bible, 216.

29. Lockyer, All the Women, 35.

30. Higgs, Really Bad Girls of the Bible, 158.

31. Higgs, Really Bad Girls of the Bible, 158; Ockenga, Women Who Made Bible History, 115; Miller, Women of the Bible, 216.

32. Goggin and Strobel, The Way of the Dragon or the Way of the Lamb, 143.

AMANDA PENCE is pursuing an MA in Bible exposition from Biola University’s Talbot School of Theology. She has volunteered at her church in various capacities, including children’s ministry, small group teaching and administration, missions, and service on the deacon board and business committee. As a student paper competition winner, Amanda read her article at CBE's 2022 International Conference in Atlanta, Georgia.

Join the Movement Make a statement about your commitment to women when your church or school joins CBE as a member.

Visit cbe.today/orgmembers.

The fact that [our] seminary is an institutional member of CBE sends a signal to the larger community about how we view women; in particular, in the life of our family –Paul, Chilcote, Ashland Seminary

cbeinternational.org

PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022 • 7

A Medieval Makeover: Women’s Roles Before and After the Reformation Michele Arndt

The journey of women’s leadership in the church is hardly a straight line. It is a curvy road with plenty of twists and turns, sometimes pointing women to lead and, at other times, pointing them right out the door. The goal of this article is to examine the eras on either side of the Protestant Reformation. On one side, we will find women serving and leading in the church. On the other, they will be serving and leading in their homes. What led to this drastic exchange? To answer this, we will need to make a few broad-brush strokes over the top of the history of the early church and its interpretation of Scripture and women before arriving on the doorstep of the Middle Ages. This era sets the scene for where women will land, both before and after the Reformation. And what we will find is indeed a medieval makeover. This article explores the various religious, social, and historic dynamics surrounding the Reformation that led to driving women out of leadership in the church and back into their homes, as well as the ways we are experiencing the impact of these developments today.

The Early Church Cissie Fairchilds offers a robust study of women within religious and social circles in early modern Europe.1 In her opening chapter, Fairchilds describes how patriarchal views were established and sustained in the early church despite the Christian faith being built largely on the premise of the spiritual equality of all human beings. She explains how patriarchal interpretations of Scripture became the dominant and preferred narratives, beginning even with the story of creation. Genesis includes two accounts, the second of which, in Gen 2, provided plenty of fodder for those in the church in the early Middle Ages who began to bear down on women more forcefully regarding their accepted roles in the church and in society. In short, an interpretation of Gen 2 that took root at that time painted Eve as made, not in God’s image, but rather in Adam’s. Additionally, that Eve was the one tricked by the serpent introduces the idea that women are intellectually inferior, hence more readily deceived. And thus, the story of women as the weaker gender was born.

Despite four Gospels that include plentiful examples of Jesus elevating and liberating women, welcoming them in his ministry, and verses like Gal 3:28 from the apostle Paul which speak to the broad equality of all, male leaders in the church began to reinforce negative scripts about women, with support from passages like Eph 5:22–23, 1 Cor 14:34–35, and, famously, 1 Tim 2:12–14.

Fairchilds proposes that these misogynist interpretations were a response to the early life of the church when it was trying to move out from the underground and into the public sector where the Roman Empire had plenty to say about a male-dominated world.

Perhaps the men in the church started to crawl back underground when they realized the opposition their Christian faith would face in allowing women to teach, preach, and lead.2 For indeed, these 8

• PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022

are ministries women had performed during the nascent era of the first-century church.

What exactly, then, was the fear about continuing to allow women to rise up and share these spaces with men? Sadly, the script that began to circulate was this: women were nothing more than objects of sexual temptation. They would be dangerous as leaders in the church and would lure others—especially men— into sin. One need only read the words of Tertullian, one of the earliest church fathers, to hear how readily these views were being accepted: “And do you not know that you are Eve? God’s sentence hangs still over all your sex and His punishment weighs down upon you. You are the devil’s gateway.”3 The early church fathers, including Augustine, John Chrysostom, and others, followed suit. Instead of being encouraged to marry, women were now encouraged to remain virgins and pursue lives of chastity.

Fairchilds says that in this way, they could “avoid the curse of Eve and gain salvation.” She goes on to explain the impact of this mindset moving into the Middle Ages: . . . by the Middle Ages, Christianity had changed from a religion stressing the spiritual equality of all human beings to one whose message to women was of their essential sinfulness and their God-ordained subordination to men. This evolution took place because texts emphasizing female inferiority were frequently cited while those emphasizing equality were ignored. This suggests that people found what they wanted to find in Christianity—they found the patriarchal paradigm there because they already believed in it.4 A new normal had been accepted about women, and it would now hold for centuries.

The Middle Ages Women began pushing against these long-held beliefs by the Middle Ages. As a key example, Christine de Pisan (1365–1429), herself a Christian, did so by thoughtfully reinterpreting passages like Gen 2 in The Book of the City of Ladies. This written work sought to refute the belief that women were so entrenched in sexual sin that they could not be saved. Pisan hoped to debunk ideas about gender roles and gender traits being natural inevitabilities.5 She went about her work not by directly refuting these ideas, but by carefully posing examples that might demonstrate counter thinking. In other words, she never came out and said that men and women are equal; she merely sought to begin quietly undoing the assumed ideas that had been accepted by many in the church and within the society of her day.

Pisan did not write alone. In the following century, her pen and resolve were joined by women like Marguerite de Navarre, a

cbeinternational.org

French royal who wrote the novel Heptameron (1558). This book is described as a set of “linked stories about sacred and profane love told from a woman’s point of view.”6 De Navarre was followed

by Spanish author Maria de Zaya whose work Disenchantments of Love (1647) handled issues of violence against women, which ironically were more often told by male authors of romance novels. According to Fairchilds, of the ten stories written by de Zaya, six provide a woman’s point of view depicting the murders of innocent women at the hands of their “supposed patriarchal protectors, fathers, brothers and husbands, to guard masculine honor; in the other four, they endure domestic violence before finding havens in convents.”7 This collection of writing alone is striking as it presents the two main options available to women in the Middle Ages: either to protect men by hiding the sexual temptation of women away in convents or to repackage the temptation by giving them into the hands of protective patriarchal marriage. Either way, the goal at hand seemed to be protecting men from women. These dynamics collided head on with the Reformation. Considering that Luther nailed his ninety-five theses to the door in Wittenberg in 1517, we are now situated to begin to understand where women’s roles landed both before and after the Reformation. In a world that had now rehearsed for centuries that women are sexually dangerous, intellectually inferior, and incapable of leading, the Reformation became the perfect backdrop to using religion as an excuse to contain women even further.

The Protestant Reformation It is here that we should hear from the revered leader of the Reformation, Martin Luther himself. What were his ideas about marriage, women, and their roles in the church? According to German theologian Gertrud Wittenberg Tönsing, Luther had strong and defined views about all these things. Tönsing reports that Luther “rejected the emphasis on celibacy as a morally superior discipline.”8 Rather, Luther and others now began to support the idea that marriage was the ultimate ideal for women, their higher calling, and that now, instead of sexuality being a negative source of temptation, it could be celebrated as a gift from God. As Barbara MacHaffie highlights, this elevated the sacrament of marriage and shifted it to being a solution to the perceived issue of women as sexual temptresses. “Since sexuality was no longer viewed as evil, the married woman, at least, was not cast in the role of temptress and seducer.”9 Sex and women had before been bad; now they were good! Now, women could be seen as fulfilling God’s call on their lives through marriage, rather than working against God and men in ways that yielded corruption. Furthermore, marriage would continue to protect both men and women. Now women had a “safe place” to house their sexual desire and, rather than men being tempted, men and their sexuality could be served by women.

This lit a fire under the Reformation and its doctrine. The ground underneath women’s feet began to shift dramatically. The place of women in the church since the first century experienced a dramatic makeover. No longer were women leading and serving

cbeinternational.org

alongside men in the church. Now, they were being sent home to serve, not alongside, but under men—in nearly every sense of the word. Martin Luther affirmed the “subordination of women as the result of woman’s sin!”10 John Calvin followed suit. He understood Gen 2 as confirming woman as “helper” to the man since she was made after him (thus subordinate), coupled with the fact that she was the first deceived, adding insult to injury in his mind. This led to removing the idea that living in a convent was a valid religious vocation. Now it was the opposite. The idea of a set apart life of virginity in a monastery was exchanged for women who were now being reassigned to their new “vocation” as mothers and homemakers. The Reformation moved women into subordinate roles where their primary calling would now be to serve as submissive wives whose worth would be found in their ability to bear and rear children and tend to the home. It was not only the birth of children that would mark this sudden shift. The cult of domesticity, though not officially recognized until the nineteenth century, was unofficially born, and we are still feeling its effects today. We will return to the cult of domesticity in a moment. For now, we continue to zoom in on the immediate effects and ideas surrounding women as a result of the Reformation.

In her 2021 book, The Making of Biblical Womanhood, Beth Allison Barr traces much of this history around views of women in the early church, the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and to the present. Regarding the significant impact of the Reformation, Barr says: “Before the reformation, women could gain spiritual authority by rejecting their sexuality. Virginity empowered them.” She goes on to highlight how women became nuns and took religious vows, and how women such as Catherine of Siena and Hildegard of Bingen contributed greatly to the leadership of the church. These medieval women served with authority alongside men.11 “The further medieval women moved from marriage, the closer they were to God.”12 But, Barr says, “After the Reformation, the opposite became true for Protestant women. The more closely they identified with being wives and mothers, the godlier they became.”13 Interestingly, in the case of Luther, Barr documents that Luther himself married a runaway nun named Katharina von Bora (later known as Katie Luther).14 The fact that Luther himself married a former nun seems to underscore his ideologies surrounding women during this era.

Did he view himself as rescuing or redeeming a woman and her calling before God? MacHaffie seems to believe this is the case.

She sees marriage through the eyes of Luther and the Reformation as a “redemptive rescue” for women who were associated with sexual evil. Marriage, via the Reformation, liberated women from being seen as seducers.15 Barr goes on to highlight that Luther certainly preferred the Martha-like characters of the Gospels to the Mary, mother of Jesus types. In Luke 10, Martha is found faithfully serving, modelling domestic subservience. Mary, on the other hand, also underwent a makeover with the Reformation. Once esteemed for her virginity, Tönsing points out that now “Mary was rediscovered [by Luther and others] as a mother, also of other children.”16 According to Tönsing, the Reformation may have “brought Mary back down

PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022 • 9

to earth”17 from her high and lofty status, but it did so by means of recasting the role of sexuality, procreation, and family life. It seems we traded one idealized role of Mary for another and, in doing so, continued to restrain women to roles that defined them either merely by their sexuality or by their ability to procreate. It is here that we return to the cult of domesticity, for Mary was the first victim of this shift. From super-spiritual virgin to domestic diva, Mary seems to have been the first to undergo this makeover.

According to MacHaffie, while the cult of domesticity would not fully emerge for a few centuries, it most certainly began brewing as soon as Luther, Calvin, and the other Reformers took on this new accepted norm for women as called to the home front to serve men and their families. MacHaffie describes it this way: “By the middle of the nineteenth century in America, a cluster of ideas on the nature of women and their appropriate role was firmly planted in the popular mind of white America.” She aptly identifies this cluster of ideas as the “cult of true womanhood” or the “cult of domesticity.” MacHaffie describes this as the new American ideal—a woman who was “submissive, morally pure and pious. She found power and happiness in the role of wife and mother.”18 Barr also speaks to this cult, saying that while we cannot pinpoint its exact birthdate, it was conceived in the nineteenth century. Like MacHaffie, Barr identifies four characteristics of the cult of domesticity: piety, purity, submission, and domesticity.19 What is ironic here is that MacHaffie and Barr both point to the way women were now seen as the spiritual role models. This is why “piety” makes Barr’s list for the cult of domesticity where she explains the tenet that women are “naturally more religious than men and more attuned to spiritual matters.”20 MacHaffie echoes this purported idea of women being “morally superior to men,” thus adding spiritual instruction in the home to their list of domestic duties.21 Perhaps we would do well to remember what sparked the Reformation. Ultimately, it was Luther’s desire to put an end to the corruption in the church via the sale of indulgences that kept others literally eating out of the hands of priests who were deemed the spiritual professionals. He sought to do away with these indulgences and to place Scripture into the hands of common people to feed themselves spiritually. At no point does it appear that Luther had a conscious goal to significantly alter the lives of women. Yet, this became one of the unforeseen outcomes of his passionate reforms. Because one of the main thrusts of Luther’s actions was to recover the authority of Scripture, this unforeseen outcome put him in a difficult place. By the time the sixteenth century arrived, the narratives about women as associated with sexual temptation and evil were centuries old.

If Luther was going to recover the authority of Scripture, he had quite a hill to climb to undo the distorted interpretations about women that preceded him. As Fairchilds demonstrates, this would require Luther to recover the biblical idea of spiritual equality against ideas that women were spiritually inferior to men.22 While Luther partially succeeded, he came up against other German voices like that of Anabaptist preacher Balthasar Hubmaier. He is one example of the many European male voices 10

• PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022

in the church during the Reformation who promoted women’s subordination. Like others, he pointed to the “old dichotomy between body and spirit to stress the carnal and hence evil nature of women.”23 This left Luther at odds with a desire to recover Scripture and its authority on one hand, while finding himself convinced that the life of celibacy was no longer a holy calling from God. Luther attacked this way of life, “invading convents and urging nuns to leave.”24 Luther’s influence was significant, and many joined him in these ideas and the efforts they produced.

Responding and Resisting Where did this leave women at the time of the Reformation?

Constrained. Confused. Conflicted. And as a result, a counter reformation emerged. This was an effort on the part of women, primarily in the Catholic Church, who had felt called to serve God uniquely and desired to retain their sense of calling. Movements to decloister and reorganize took shape as women within religious orders sought to move out into the community more visibly and shed their traditional garb.25 These women resisted the efforts of Luther and others to shut down their convents.

Yet these women also feared that Protestants, determined to “catch in the act” those committed to celibacy, would pounce on Catholic women who moved into the public sector by looking for immorality among clergy or nuns. It was as if they were simply waiting to say, “See! We always knew women were seducers who were out to corrupt celibate men!”

MacHaffie mentions one such Catholic sister named Jeanne de Jussie who was determined to resist these dynamics and fought to maintain their religious orders.26 As a result, she and others experienced harassment from Protestant men because they voiced their disagreement with the way Protestantism was now glorifying marriage. De Jussie and sisters like her viewed this as a form of constraint on women. What were women in this era to do? They were being forced out of convents and into homes, while never truly being liberated from the notion that they, as women, existed to keep men happy and free from sexual temptation. It is not difficult to understand one of the striking trends that emerged during this time regarding the declarations women made in their wills.

Multiple documents record that, as women felt squeezed on both sides to please men, they found one way to liberate themselves: their wills in death. As the saying goes, “where there’s a will, there’s a way!” Stephanie Thomson and Katie Barclay have documented that women in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries saw their wills as means to the agency they were denied while living. “The construction of family memory is a central area where women could exercise agency over not only how the family was envisioned for its own purposes, but how those representations could coalesce with other forms of historical knowledge-making to shape stories of place and social positioning.”27 These women finally found a way to reject their constrained place in the church and, as those who tended to most of the family affairs at home, used their wills to make a statement.

Their religious patronage would not find its way back into the churches that limited them. Instead, many women wrote their

cbeinternational.org

wills to direct their money to the poor. Women found a way to redirect the misuses of religious patronage that had prompted the Reformation. Rather than providing money back to these religious institutions, “bequests to parish churches decreased and poor relief came to dominate.”28 Thomson and Barclay’s work goes on to explore the way wills became a “testament of post-mortem piety.” The work of Simone Laqua-O’Donnell confirms this trend. She studied 600 wills composed between 1600 and 1650 in Münster, Germany, and discovered that women overwhelmingly bequeathed their money not to the church, but to the poor.29 While this is only one trend, it suggests that women were determined to find a way to preserve their values beyond those defined by the church. Even if it meant using their will in death to make such a statement.

Conclusion As we step beyond the norms and assumed roles that took shape immediately following the Reformation, we can see that we are still, more than five centuries later, fighting the cult of domesticity.

We have yet to fully recover a view of women that relegates them neither to sexually dangerous stereotypes nor as fit only for domestic duties. In both cases, these external assessments do not align with Scripture’s manner of prescribing worth. On one hand, we have been taught to celebrate the way the Reformation put the Bible back into the hands of the people, but at the same time, it tied an apron around the waist of Christian women and bound them to their homes. Today, traces of the cult of domesticity remain as women struggle to be viewed as equals and not treated as sexual threats in the church. As Barr is quick to remind, “Just because I agree with the Reformation theologically doesn’t mean I think everything that happened as a result of the Reformation is good.”30 It appears that, while we Protestants were busy pulling the specks of control and monetary abuses out of the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, we thrust a plank of male dominance right through our own.

The way women’s identity, sexuality, and viability for leadership in the church have been distorted seems intricately connected to the Reformation. Barr highlights that, “It is not an accident that the stories of the most authoritative women in Christian history stem from the fourth century through the tenth century, when the authority structures of Christianity—not to mention the political structures to which Christianity became attached—were more fluid.”31 I long for a return to the days of Teresa of Avila and Hilda von Bingen and Catherine of Siena. I long for a day when women are freely leading, teaching, and preaching, not over men, not under men, but alongside of men. I dream of not needing to do the dance of equality or figure out how to “be” without making men uncomfortable. Perhaps what I am dreaming for is the same dream the prophet Joel had when he prophesied: “I will pour out my Spirit upon all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy.

Your old men will dream dreams, and your young men will see visions. In those days I will pour out my Spirit even on servants, men and women alike” (Joel 2:28b–29 NLT, italics added). Yes, this day will come. May the church remember. May I remember.

It will come.

cbeinternational.org

Notes 1. Cissie Fairchilds, Women in Early Modern Europe 1500–1700 (Pearson Education, 2007).

2. Fairchilds, Women in Early Modern Europe, 11.

3. Fairchilds, Women in Early Modern Europe, 11.

4. Fairchilds, Women in Early Modern Europe, 12.

5. Fairchilds, Women in Early Modern Europe, 17.

6. Fairchilds, Women in Early Modern Europe, 50.

7. Fairchilds, Women in Early Modern Europe, 186.

8. Gertrud Wittenberg Tönsing, “Feminine Deity or Sister in Faith?

A Lutheran Perspective on Mary, the Mother of Jesus,” Grace and Truth 15/2 (1988) 48.

9. Barbara J. MacHaffie, Her Story: Women in Christian Tradition (Fortress, 1986) 61.

10. MacHaffie, Her Story, 64.

11. Beth Allison Barr, The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth (Brazos, 2021) 102.

12. Barr, Making of Biblical Womanhood, 103.

13. Barr, Making of Biblical Womanhood, 103.

14. Barr, Making of Biblical Womanhood, 108.

15. MacHaffie, Her Story, 62.

16. Tönsing, “Feminine Deity or Sister in Faith?,” 48.

17. Tönsing, “Feminine Deity or Sister in Faith?,” 55.

18. MacHaffie, Her Story, 93.

19. Barr, Making of Biblical Womanhood, 165.

20. Barr, Making of Biblical Womanhood, 165.

21. MacHaffie, Her Story, 94.

22. Fairchilds, Women in Early Modern Europe, 196.

23. MacHaffie, Her Story, 71.

24. Fairchilds, Women in Early Modern Europe, 197.

25. MacHaffie, Her Story, 66–67.

26. MacHaffie, Her Story, 68.

27. Katie Barclay and Stephanie Thomson, “Religious Patronage as Gendered Family Memory in Sixteenth-century England,” Journal of Family History 46/1 (2021) 14.

28. Barclay and Thomson, “Religious Patronage,” 15.

29. Simone Laqua-O’Donnell, Women and the Counter-Reformation in Early Modern Münster (Oxford University Press, 2014) 53, see esp. the table on p. 53 for compelling data.

30. Barr, Making of Biblical Womanhood, 107.

31. Barr, Making of Biblical Womanhood, 114.

MICHELE ARNDT recently earned an MDiv from North Park Theological Seminary in Chicago, Illinois.

She formerly worked in the corporate sector and then with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. She is now lead pastor of The Crossing, a congregation of The Evangelical Covenant Church. As one of the winners of CBE’s 2022 student paper competition, Michele read this article at CBE's 2022 International Conferencein Atlanta.

PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022 • 11

Chinese Interpretations of Galatians 3:28: Ambiguities, Insights, and Paths Forward Yu-huei Huang

Galatians 3:28 is one of the foundational verses that addresses how people of different genders should relate to each other in Christ. This article will examine interpretations of Gal 3:28 by nine Chinese pastors and biblical scholars, spanning from the 1970s to 2010, and will point out common ambiguities which may hinder their application in ministry. It will then review the work of two other Chinese scholars, namely Sam Tsang and K. K. Yeo, to show how a more nuanced reading of Galatians can be helpful for practical application in a real-world Chinese ministry context. I close by suggesting several areas in which care should be taken when future interpretation and ministry are done.

Chinese Interpreters Surveyed The nine authors surveyed (not including Tsang and Yeo, as explained above) are listed below with the original publication date of their main interpretive work in parentheses:1 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Chow Lien-hwa (1979) Ronald Y. K. Fung (1982 and 2008) Stephen C. T. Chan (1983) Witness Lee (1987) Paul Li (1997) Wang Guo-xian (2000) Ezra Hon-seng Kok (2003) Simon S. M. Wong (2003) Huang Deng-huang (2010)

These authors represent preachers, pastors, and seminary professors working in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia, and among the Chinese diaspora. They represent how Galatians is often read in a real-world setting. Furthermore, because Bible commentaries written from a native Chinese standpoint are rare, these are likely to serve as teaching and preaching reference materials for pastors in the Chinese church. As such, these works can help us understand how a Chinese Christian would likely understand the passage at hand. Note that these authors are all male; to my knowledge, there have been no published books on Galatians in Chinese by female authors.

Main Interpretive Issues The interpretative works surveyed in this study generally focus on three issues in Gal 3:28. First, the way the three pairs of declarations are stated, “neither . . . nor” (ouk . . . oude) twice and then “not . . . and” (ouk . . . kai). While most English translations retain the Greek grammatical structure (i.e., a negative particle [ouk, “no, neither”] followed by a conjunction [oude, “nor” or kai, “and”]), this verse in Chinese reads differently. Conjunctions can be omitted in Chinese, so the most popular Chinese translations used worldwide (the Chinese Union Version and Revised Chinese Union Version) in effect skip over the conjunctions that are

12

• PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022

distinct in the Greek—oude and kai.2 In addition, in an effort to clarify the meaning in Chinese, these translations add the verb “to distinguish” (Chinese fēn), thus rendering it “[implied subject] can no longer distinguish between [element A, element B]” instead of the clause based on “there is” (Greek eni), which occurs three times in the verse: “there is neither [element A] nor [element B].” This difference must be kept in mind as we delve into the discussion below.

The second interpretive issue focuses on the meaning and implications of people becoming “one” (Greek heis). The third issue regards the significance of the three sets of dualities: Jew/ Greek (ioudaios/hellēn), slave/free (doulos/eleutheros), and male/ female (arsen/thēlu), namely, how these dualities illustrate or are representative of differences in the world.

Common Ambiguities and Blind Spots From a survey of the nine authors, we can summarize that current Chinese interpretations on Galatians tend to exhibit the following four ambiguities and blind spots: An Abstract or Undefined “No Distinction” As noted above, instead of “neither . . . nor,” the verse in a Chinese understanding is closer to “[implied subject] can no longer distinguish between [A and B].” Several interpreters home in on this message; for example, Fung (“The distinctions once prevalent that are based on ethnicity, social position, and gender no longer exist . . .”),3 Kok and Wong (“The categories that once were used to divide people . . . although we once thought them to be important labels, are no longer existent.”),4 and Chow (“In Jesus Christ, all distinctions have been abolished.”).5 These interpretations all focus on the fact that distinctions no longer exist, yet how we are to live out this assertion remains unexplained. The distinctive characteristics of ethnicity, social status, and gender obviously still exist after baptism. It is imperative, then, that a more applicable interpretation beyond an ambiguous one is needed for Chinese-speaking believers to understand how they should navigate their apparent distinctions with other people. It will not be enough to claim that “Greeks, that is, non-Jews, when they believe in Christ, will be exactly the same as Jews,” that “slaves . . . when they become God’s children, are no longer distinguishable from the free,” and that “in Jesus Christ, all distinctions have been abolished, even that of the immense divide between the male and female in the ancient world.”6 A Spiritualized “No Distinction” One way the interpreters have attempted to flesh out what “no distinction” means practically is to spiritualize it. For example, Chan writes that “those justified by faith . . . have become ‘one’ in their spiritual relationships with each other . . . because we

cbeinternational.org

stand on the same basis and receive the same kind of life.”7 Li maintains that having “no distinction” does not mean there are no differences, but that all parties involved are indistinguishable in becoming heirs of God.8 Fung has the same perspective, namely, that it is regarding being true heirs of Abraham in which there is no distinction.9 In addition to the views above, which stem from the idea that the benefits of being in Christ are purely spiritual, the other side of this argument is that the former divisions have an unspiritual origin. Such writes Wang, “it is regarding the fact that ‘all are in Christ’ that there is no distinction . . . there are no longer the distinctions that have come as a result of being in Adam.”10 Similarly, in Lee’s “Local Church” theology, the “schismatic division (fēnliè de qūbié)” mentioned in Gal 3:28 is rooted in the “natural”; contrarily, being “in Christ” implies occupying a special spiritual state wherein “there is absolutely no place for our natural man (tiānrán de rén), natural nature (tiānrán de xìngqíng), and natural personality (tiānrán de xìnggé).”11 These interpretations rightly point out how God’s generosity and mercy in Christ do not distinguish between ethnicity, social standing, or gender—God grants believers the right to become heirs and obtain life without partiality. Yet the readings above unfortunately limit the effects of God’s impartiality to only what individuals and groups—defined by their ethnicity, social standing, and gender—receive spiritually. Accordingly, there is no imperative for individuals or groups to reach beyond what delineates them from other individuals and groups in response to their new status in Christ.

However, it is not merely that the peoples who previously did not have access to the Lord’s table now are able to approach it, as if it were only a matter of forming a relationship with God; it is that they can now approach the table to fellowship with each other (recall that the dividing wall between people groups has now been broken down, Eph 2:14). In other words, becoming heirs of God not only implies a new way of relating to God, but also a new way of interacting with each other in community—a new relationship that is spiritual, but also practical.

the potential to bring about “true freedom and true equality in Jesus Christ.”14 Unfortunately, these authors do not give space for potentially radical socio-political implications to be played out, thus leaving one-ness as an abstract notion and allowing it to be de-radicalized, as we shall see below. (I should note that, in Kok’s other book on Galatians, he goes further to say that in the early church, though one-ness in Christ means unity along three dimensions—ethnicity, sociocultural status, and gender—here Paul only wishes to discuss the implications of one-ness regarding ethnicity.15 In other words, for Kok, one-ness regarding gender is not in view here in Gal 3:28, thus circumventing the potential of this verse to speak to gender issues.)

Is Paul only referring to feelings?

Is he not addressing real-world practices regarding how the Galatians ought to conduct themselves in community?

An Abstract “One-ness” Regarding the second interpretive issue, Fung observes that the “one” (Greek heis) that believers now embody is expressed as grammatically masculine, rather than as feminine or neuter. And, to add clarity to Fung’s statement, it is an inclusive masculine rather than one that refers only to male believers or to masculine traits. That is, all believers—regardless of ethnicity, class, and gender—have become “a corporate unity/personality” united by a shared faith.12 Kok and Wong concur: “in the life of Christ Jesus, all have ‘become one body.’”13 Indeed, some interpreters, such as Chow, have pointed out how one-ness can be likened to a Chinese idiom, “ten thousand hearts as one (wànzhòngyìxīn),” thus having

cbeinternational.org

A Spiritualized, Internalized One-ness As we have seen regarding the interpretive issue of “no distinction,” when there is abstractness, there is a tendency to spiritualize and avoid radical socio-political implications.16 The same happens with an abstract one-ness. For example, Huang writes that “the meaning of being ‘one in Christ’ is that we should no longer have in our hearts feelings of superiority or inferiority based on ethnicity, class, and gender.”17 Tellingly, in this interpretation, the abolishment of the distinctions is only described as having the right “feelings” “in our hearts,” without reference to bodily, external, and cultural practices, making it a wholly internal affair. Yet is Paul only referring to feelings? Is he not addressing real-world practices regarding how the Galatians ought to conduct themselves in community?

As another example, Chan, while rightly moving beyond the internal feelings of an individual, still applies one-ness to a limited number of interpersonal relationships within the Christian community, writing that many factions and divisions in the church today stem from people emphasizing their relationships outside of Christ over that of “being in Christ,” for example factions based on people hailing from the same hometown, having gone to school together, belonging to the same workplace, etc. These are the true reasons for competition and factions [within the church].18 While this observation is certainly true in some cases, it unfortunately still frames the issue as a limited one that is internal to a small part of the Christian community. A better interpretation that recognizes the socio-political implications in Paul’s argument would prompt the church to live differently from what is expected by social norms and therefore have an impact on the outside world.

To be sure, the idea of socio-political change is not foreign to our interpreters. However, some of them—such as Fung—dismiss it outright, writing that “Paul is primarily not thinking about a change in social circumstances, but rather the new existence of being accepted into the body of Christ.”19 Fung backs up his

PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022 • 13

argument by stating, “After all, Paul did not say, ‘You are all equal in Christ,’ but rather, ‘You are all one in Christ.’”20 In the same section, Fung dialogues with Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza and Richard Hays.21 He argues contrary to their proposition that women can be given the same commission as men regarding church leadership, just as Gentiles (called “Greeks” in Gal 3:28) can be like Jews and slaves can be like the free in taking up this commission, that instead there are essential differences between the three dualities (Jew/Greek, slave/free, and men/women), even if these dualities are presented in a parallel structure in the text.

For Fung, the essential difference is that, while slavery is a social practice instituted by sinful human beings and ethnic differences have been superseded by the cross, gender differences are rooted in creation and thus maintain significance after salvation. Thus, according to Fung, rather than focusing on the relationship between women and men within the body of Christ, this passage is instead merely pointing out that both women and men can become part of the body of Christ through faith and baptism.22 This limitation is again a spiritualization of the text, one that overlooks its social, cultural, and political dimensions. While God has created men and women to have different types of bodies, and these bodies result in individuals experiencing differences in social roles, I suggest that many of these differences are the result of the cultural constructions of fallen human societies rather than rooted in creation.23 As such, how humans live out certain gender differences may not be all that dissimilar to the other two (sinful) social institutions: slavery and ethnic superiority.

and is also an adoption motif. Regarding the latter, Tsang points out that clothing is used in Greco-Roman society to signify one’s ethnicity, social class, gender, and even age, and is therefore determinant of whether one is eligible for inheritance.26 As such, the three dualities represent the types of person who were formerly ineligible to inherit (i.e., Gentiles could not inherit the promises given to Abraham vis-à-vis Jews, slaves could not own property vis-à-vis the free, and women did not typically have the right to inherit property vis-à-vis men) but who now in Christ have been adopted as sons (via the clothing imagery) and have become heirs to God.27 In Tsang’s view, then, Paul is not simply indiscriminately abolishing social distinctions, but rather turning divisive social markers on their heads, such that the imagery he used would be completely in line with the cultural customs of his time (i.e., inheritance rights) but result in a completely different end (i.e., inheritance rights for those who had none). In contrast to the other interpretations discussed above, which tend to overlook the socio-political dimension in their ambiguous affirmation and spiritual interpretation of there being “no distinction,” we may say that Paul was engaging in a form of countercultural polemic wherein the socio-political dimension is acknowledged and then co-opted to criticize itself.

Because Tsang does so, the implications of adoption and becoming heirs for all members within the dualities call for sociopolitical reform starting within the church. For example, regarding the categories of male and female, Tsang argues that since they are equally eligible as heirs, the entire congregation—including women—should have equal status in Christ.28 Tsang acknowledges that this passage refers primarily to an equality regarding salvation, yet he also suggests that this spiritual reality is one that believers should strive to turn into reality in all realms of life.29 Similar to how Tsang points out Paul’s acknowledgment of socio-political realities, K. K. Yeo also acknowledges the sociopolitical distinctions among the three dualities. Rather than dismissing them as irrelevant in light of Christ, on the contrary, Yeo proposes a new one-ness in Christ that is precisely the result of these differences. Yeo does so by introducing the Confucian idea of “rectifying the name (zhèngmíng).” The Analects of Confucius records that, when asked about the foremost thing he would do to govern a nation, Confucius replied, “It is none other than to rectify names! . . . If names are not right then language is not in accordance with the truth of things; if language is not in accord with the truth of things, then affairs cannot be successful. . . .”30 Yeo, therefore, suggests that Confucius’s insight into the function of a name and its correspondence to the reality of a thing can help us understand Paul’s use of language, namely, that only by naming reality for what it is (i.e., that there have been divisions along ethnic, class, and gender lines) can Paul then critique it.31 Thus, on the one hand, Paul “uses traditional language” to point to “the truth of things” that the reader would readily acknowledge

Paul is not simply indiscriminately abolishing social distinctions, but rather turning divisive social markers on their heads

Insights and Helpful Approaches: Sam Tsang and K. K. Yeo As we can see from the discussion above, Chinese interpretations of Gal 3:28 tend to make the interpretive issues at hand (namely, “no distinction” and one-ness) into abstract, spiritual, or internal notions without social, cultural, or political implications. At the same time, we should not overlook the insight that Fung gives when he suggests that the three kinds of dualities in Gal 3:28 are not merely distinctions regarding societal class but are rooted in different legal statuses under both Roman law and Jewish law.24 In this view, then, being baptized into Christ implies that distinctions based on legal statuses (as well as social class) are no longer important; on the contrary, “slaves and the free have the same spiritual standing.”25 While Fung’s implications still fall mostly within spiritual categories (as can be seen in the summary above), he leaves space for us to make a case that Paul does have in mind the overcoming of social (legal) and political limitations.

Developing this idea further, Sam Tsang remarks on Paul’s use of metaphoric language, arguing that the imagery of “being clothed with Christ” (Gal 3:27) has ties to both baptismal language (i.e., clothing has strong ties to religious status in Greco-Roman society and hints at the ritual clothes worn after one’s baptism) 14

• PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022

cbeinternational.org

(i.e., that there are divisions); on the other hand, Paul develops a new reality “in Christ” and points the old name to this new “truth of things.”32 Accordingly, “Jew or Greek in Christ,” “slave or free in Christ,” and “male and female in Christ” do not refer to what divides them (e.g., differences between slave and master), but what unites them—being “one” in the body of Christ.33 Note that there is a nuance Yeo makes clear: the “one” in Christ is not a sameness (tóngyī) nor a uniformity (yízhì), but an inclusive, unifying, harmonious relationship that encompasses everyone who is in Christ.34 Yeo uses two terms that sound the same in Mandarin (both are transliterated héyī) and both have the character for “one,” unity (合一) and harmony (和 一), to translate heis (Greek “one”). Thus, Yeo points out a fact that many interpreters have missed, that one-ness in Christ is not based on having no distinctions (contrary to the common Chinese translation of the verse), but rather is based on being distinct from each other.

Writes Yeo, “Individual identities are clarified and formed [when we face someone different from us]; through differences, we come to know who we are.”35 In fact, according to Yeo, if there were no differences between each of the dualities, Paul’s argument would not make sense! However, “in Christ there are still Jews and Greeks . . . when two people from different ethnicities, cultures, or nations love each other, their differences and uniqueness do not disappear . . . neither will their differences and uniqueness disappear when they are ‘in Christ.’”36 Applying the same logic to the duality of male/female, Yeo maintains that gender differences and a one-ness (“harmony”) in Christ can coexist.37 Yeo sees Paul’s “there is no longer ‘male and female’” as commenting on Gen 1:27 (“male and female he created them”), specifically, that Paul is refuting the idea of an undifferentiated human, and by extension and contrary to many of our interpreters, the idea that there are no distinctions between genders in Christ.38 In addition, Yeo suggests that Paul has in mind Gen 2:21–23 and is saying that it is on the basis of differences and uniqueness among individuals that when a man meets a woman—someone different but equal to him—he becomes self-aware, and vice versa a woman.

In summary, contrary to the interpretations that read “no distinction” as a “spiritualized sameness,” Yeo instead maintains that “one-ness means a harmonious equality” between male and female based on their uniqueness and differences.39 For Yeo, “the new truth of reality in Christ does not eliminate differences and distinctions between ethnicities, social classes, or genders, but it does overcome the prejudices, obstacles, and oppressions in these kinds of differences and distinctions.”40

passage. However, we have also shown that a more nuanced reading can acknowledge the countercultural force of Paul’s argument (Tsang) and one that retains the distinctions among dualities while arguing for equality (Yeo). These interpretations rightly ask the reader to strive toward making a spiritual reality (equality in Christ) reality in all realms of life.

To close, I suggest several areas for further interpretive work: 1. To flesh out the implications of one-ness regarding differences in society and culture, i.e., outside of the individual and outside of the church, in addition to acknowledging the spiritual effects of Christ’s work.

2. To be careful not to uncritically assume cultural expressions and expectations of gender roles as inherent in creation.

3. To see the countercultural force in Paul’s declaration, so that one’s life may reflect Christ’s reconciliatory work that eliminates human divisions (i.e., two ethnicities are both unconditionally heirs of Abraham), power differences (i.e., those who did not have a right to inheritance now do because of Christ), and prejudices (i.e., those who had and did not have the Torah were once enemies but now are able to fellowship at the Lord’s table as family).

If we can keep in mind these points, churches should be able to stay true to the perspective of being “in Christ” and from this vantage point identify how power differences and prejudices denigrate women, avoiding the uncritical repetition in the church of such erroneous cultural norms, as well as the use of God’s word as a prooftext for such practices. Only then will the vision of the genders being one in Christ become a reality in the lives of our brothers and sisters, and only as such can the church community portray gender roles that are biblical and different from the world’s, thus witnessing to the new creation that Christ has wrought.

There is great power in this passage that goes beyond simply changing the believer’s subjective understanding of the gospel and their relation to God; it also has the potential to transform one’s ethics and affect how we relate to other people in society, including those of a different gender. As Tsang writes, “Paul’s teaching has graced the church, but there is still unfinished business ahead.

Long live the revolution that started with Paul!”41

One-ness in Christ is not based on having no distinctions . . . but rather is based on being distinct from each other.

Conclusion and Suggestions As we can see from this survey of Chinese interpretations of Gal 3:28, there is a tendency to veer toward ambiguity and abstractness and see Paul as referring only to internal or spiritual realities, thus missing the socio-political implications of this

cbeinternational.org

Notes 1. For purposes of illustrating the Chinese perspective on Galatians and Pauline studies, I have only chosen books written in Chinese, thus omitting translated works, such as the Chinese version of the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. These represent what is available in Fuller Theological Seminary library’s Chinese collection; a seminary or mid-sized or larger Chinese church would likely carry the same books in their own library. Where the naming follows Western conventions, the surname is the last word; where it is transliterated, the surname is

PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022 • 15

the first word. Chow (周聯華, 1920–2016) was a Baptist pastor and theologian born in Shanghai, China. He spent most of his professional life ministering in Taiwan. Fung (馮蔭坤, 1937–) is a retired professor at Hong Kong’s China Graduate School of Theology. Chan (陳終道, 1924–2010) was born in Hong Kong and mostly ministered in the Chinese diaspora. Lee (李常受, 1905–1997) was the leader of the “Local Church” movement in Taiwan and the United States and is seen as the successor to Chinese theologian and pastor Watchman Nee (1903– 1972). His commentary is included in the Recovery Version, a Chinese translation used exclusively in the “Local Church” movement. Li (李 保羅) was the president of Hong Kong’s United Wesleyan Graduate Institute. Wang (王國顯, 1927–2020) ministered in China, Hong Kong, and among Chinese Americans. Kok (郭漢成) was the president of Malaysia’s Seminari Theoloji Malaysia and is a research fellow in NT studies. Wong (黃錫木) is an honorary researcher at the Divinity School of Chung Chi College at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and a translation consultant for the Asia Pacific region of United Bible Societies. Huang (黃登煌) is a NT professor at the Taiwan Graduate School of Pastoral Psychology.

2. Chinese Union Version (1906): Bìng bùfēn yóutàirén, xī lìní rén, zìzhǔ de, wèi nú de, huò nán huò nǚ, yīnwèi nǐmen zài jīdū yēsū lǐ dōu chéngwéi yì le. 並不分猶太人、希利尼人，自主的、為奴的，或男或女， 因為你們在基督耶穌裡都成為一了。 Revised Chinese Union Version (2006): Bú zàifēn yóutàirén huò xīlà rén, búzài fēnwéi nú de zìzhǔ de, bú zàifēn nánde nǚde, yīnwèi nǐmen zài jīdū yēsū lǐ dōu chéngwéi yì le. 不再 分猶太人或希臘人，不再分為奴的自主的，不再分男的女的，因為你 們在基督耶穌裏都成為一了。 3. Ronald Y. K. Fung, Zhēnlǐ yǔ zìyóu: Jiā lā tài shū zhùshì [Truth and Freedom: Commentary on Galatians] (Hong Kong: Christian Communications, 1982) 236, italics added. I have translated from Chinese all quotations from this text.

4. Alex T. Cheung, Simon S. M. Wong, and Ezra Hon-seng Kok, Qínglǐ zhījiān chí xìndào: Jiā lā tài shū, tiē sā luó ní jiā qiánhòu shū xīdú [Rediscovering the Bible: The Book of Galatians and 1–2 Thessalonians] (Hong Kong: Logos Book House, 2003) 99, italics added. Kok and Wong are the authors of this book’s Galatians section. I will refer to this work in the body henceforth as Kok and Wong.

5. Chow Lien-hwa, Jiā lā tài shū, yǐ fú suǒ shū [Galatians, Ephesians], 3rd ed., Chinese Bible Commentary 36 (Zhonghe, Taiwan: Christian Literature Council, 2006) 121, italics added.

6. These three consecutive quotations are from Chow, Galatians, Ephesians, 121.

7. Stephen C. T. Chan, Jiā lā tài shū, yǐ fú suǒ shū [Galatians, Ephesians], 5th ed., Commentaries of the Epistles of the New Testament 4 (Taipei, Taiwan: Campus Evangelical Fellowship Press, 1983) 110.

8. Paul Li, Jiā lā tài shū jiégòu shì yán jīng zhùshì [A Commentary on a Structural Study of Galatians], 1st ed. (Kowloon, Hong Kong: Tien Dao Books, 1997) 116–17.

9. Fung, Truth and Freedom, 237.

10. Wang Guo-xian, Dézháo érzi de míng fèn: Jiā lā tài shū dújīng jìlù [Receiving Sonship: A Record of the Reading of Galatians] (Hong Kong: Manna Book Store, 2000) 124, italics added.

11. “Galatians 3,” Online Bible Recovery Version, Taiwan Gospel Book Room, http://recoveryversion.com.tw/Style0A/026/bible_menu. php (see note 5 for Gal 3:28–29).

12. Fung, Truth and Freedom, 237.

13. Cheung, Wong, and Kok, Rediscovering the Bible, 99.

14. Chow, Galatians, Ephesians, 122–23.

16

• PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022

15. Ezra Hon-Seng Kok, Jiā lā tài shū dǎolùn [Introduction to Galatians], Introduction to the Bible (Hong Kong: Logos Book House, 2003) 112–13.

16. The reason for this spiritualizing tendency is outside the scope of this article, but I suggest it relates to the inclination toward theological fundamentalism that evolved in response to post-World War II politics, anti-communism, and anti-World Council of Churches events in Taiwan under the rule of the Chinese Nationalist Party. For a treatise on this part of history, see Chin Ken-pa, Yuēsè hé tā de xiōngdì mén: hùjiào făngòng, dăngguó jīdūtú yă táiwān jīyàopài de xíngchéng [Joseph and His Brothers: “Protecting the Faith Against Communism,” State-party Christians, and the Formation of Taiwanese Fundamentalism] (Tainan, Taiwan: Taiwan Church Press, 2017).

17. Huang, Deng-huang. Jiā lā tài shū: Jīdū de fúyīn shì běn hū ēn yīnzhe xìn de fúyīn [Galatians: The Gospel of Christ is the Gospel by Grace Through Faith] (Taipei, Taiwan: Yeong Wang Cultural Enterprise, 2010) 134.

18. Chan, Galatians, Ephesians, 110.

19. Ronald Y. K. Fung, Jiā lā tài shū zhùshì [A Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians] (Taipei, Taiwan: Campus Evangelical Fellowship Press, 2008) 896, italics added.

20. Fung, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, 896. Huang makes a similar argument: “the point is not that all are equal in Christ (although this is true), but that every person is a member of the body of Christ.” Huang, Galatians, 134.

21. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, “Feminist Theology as a Critical Theology of Liberation,” in Women: New Dimensions, ed. Walter J. Burghardt (Paulist, 1977) 41; Fiorenza, “‘You Are Not to Be Called Father’: Early Christian History in a Feminist Perspective,” in The Bible and Liberation: Political and Social Hermeneutics, ed. Norman K. Gottwald and Richard A. Horsley (Orbis, 1983) 410–11. Richard B. Hays’s work on Galatians includes “Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ,” CBQ 49 (1987) 268–90 and “Crucified with Christ: A Synthesis of the Theology of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, Philippians, and Galatians,” ch. 15 in Pauline Theology, ed. Jouette M. Bassler (Fortress, 1991) 1:227–46.

22. Fung, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, 899.

23. As a side note, many interpreters surveyed in this study approach Eph 5:21–33 through a complementarian lens, which may explain their insistence that one-ness in Christ does not entail equality but rather different gender roles. For example, Chan writes that women should be subservient to men in both family and church, and that this is not inequality but God’s arrangement. Lee also emphasizes that “the position of a woman is to be quiet and submissive; this protects them from overstepping their boundaries.” Li maintains that however we understand the idea of “headship” in Ephesians, the “undeniable conclusion” is that the NT “teaches wives to submit to their husbands.” Wang in a similar vein insists that the “one-ness/unity” between husbands and wives should be expressed through God-ordained gender roles. Stephen C. T. Chan, Tí mó tài qiánhòu shū, tí duō shū [1 and 2 Timothy, Titus], 4th ed., Commentaries of the Epistles of the New Testament 7 (Taipei, Taiwan: Campus Evangelical Fellowship Press, 1982) 180–82; Lee, Commentary on the Recovery Version Bible, Eph 2:11 fn 1; Paul Li, Yǐ fú suǒ shū [Ephesians], Structural Analysis and Commentary (Hong Kong: Chinese Bible International, 2005) 172; Wang Guo-xian, Jiànlì jīdū de shēntǐ: Yǐ fú suǒ shū dújīng zhájì [Building the Body of Christ: Notes on a Reading of Ephesians] (Hong Kong: Christian Alliance Press, 1977) 123.

24. Fung, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, 889, 892–93.

For example, Fung points out that Jewish law was male-centric, affording

cbeinternational.org

religious rights and responsibilities only to males in many instances (e.g., requiring them to observe the thrice-a-year religious festivals).

25. Fung, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, 889.

26. Sam Tsang, Tuōtāihuàngǔ dé zìyóu: Cóng jiā lā tài shū tàntǎo jīdū tú zuòwéi shén er zi de shēnfèn [From Slaves to Sons: A New Rhetorical Analysis on Paul’s Slave Metaphors in His Letter to the Galatians], trans.

Tong Sun, Literary Studies of the Bible (Hong Kong: Tien Dao Books, 2009) 199–201.

27. Tsang, From Slaves to Sons, 199–201.

28. Tsang, From Slaves to Sons, 229. Also, in a frank and powerful remark, Tsang points out that even though 1 Tim 2 teaches about a leadership position for men, in the current church, the role of the servant—which was what leadership originally entailed—is often ironically relegated to women such that they are tasked with the majority of difficult tasks, whereas the male leaders reap what the women have sown.

29. Tsang, From Slaves to Sons, 238–39.

30. Khiok-Khng Yeo, Kǒngzǐ yǔ bǎoluó: Tiāndào yǔ shèng yán de xiāngyù [Musing with Confucius and Paul: Toward a Chinese Christian Theology], The Biblical Library (Shanghai, China: East China Normal University Press, 2010) 322.

31. Yeo, Musing with Confucius and Paul, 323.

32. Yeo, Musing with Confucius and Paul, 323–24.

33. Yeo, Musing with Confucius and Paul, 323–24.

34. Yeo, Musing with Confucius and Paul, 319.

35. Yeo, Musing with Confucius and Paul, 319.

36. Yeo, Musing with Confucius and Paul, 319.

37. Yeo, Musing with Confucius and Paul, 325.

38. Yeo, following Claus Westermann and others, takes Gen 1:27 as stating that God originally created a “male and female” group of beings.

In other words, Adam was created androgynous, and male was only differentiated from female in Gen 2:21–23. Yeo, Musing with Confucius and Paul, 325.

39. Yeo, Musing with Confucius and Paul, 326.

40. Yeo, Musing with Confucius and Paul, 326.

41. Tsang, From Slaves to Sons, 239.

TAKE NOTICE! Women Can Lead, Teach, Preach, Pastor, Disciple, Study, Learn, Co-Lead, and Work with Men in Shared Ministry Partnerships.

cbeinternational.org

YU-HUEI HUANG is an MDiv student at Fuller Theological Seminary. She has worked as a campus minister and cofounded the PeopleMovers Theatre Company with her husband, Vincent Lin. She is from Taiwan and is passionate about testifying to the beauty of Christ in culturally sensitive ways in Mandarin- and Taiwanese-speaking communities. As a student paper competition winner, Yu-huei read this article at CBE's 2022 International Conference in Atlanta, Georgia.

CBE’s 2023 International Conference

Women and the Bible: Setting the Record Straight Brazil July 2023

PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022 • 17

Paul’s Concern for Ephesus: A Survey of 1 Timothy 2:8–15 Eliza Stiles

In the middle of 1 Timothy sit some of the Bible’s most contested words about women. Historically, these verses have been wielded against women to address how they should dress, the authority they can have in the church and society, their place in the supposed creation hierarchy, and their role as mothers.

However, such applications of this text tend to ignore the issues Paul is addressing and therefore misapply his instructions.

Paul’s concern about the situation in Ephesus is not that women or men are causing problems, but that the church’s witness in the Ephesian community is at risk. In the city that was home to the cult of Artemis, false teachings were spreading and wealth was turning some people in the church away from the truth of the gospel. In 2:8–15, Paul instructs Timothy to respond to the specific ways men and women have let these false teachings affect their Christian lives. Paul’s critique is instructive for the way all Christians are called to represent the truth of the gospel and to oppose anything contrary to the truth of the gospel. Focused on maintaining the church’s witness in Ephesus, Paul urges Timothy to root out false teaching and its effects on the Christian community by encouraging peaceful prayer, humility in relation to wealth, increased education in the truth, and by confronting abusive authority.

Literary Context 1 Timothy, a letter that names Paul as its author, was likely written in the later years of his life (AD 62–67).1 Paul is writing to his long-time ministry colleague, Timothy, whom he is urging to remain in Ephesus to handle the spread of false teaching that has arisen (1:3). In Paul’s emotional farewell to the Ephesians in Acts 20, he had specifically warned them to be on guard against false teachings. Even so, he told them, “I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:29–30 NIV). Now Paul’s fears have come true. He skips his expected thanksgiving at the beginning of the letter, a standard element in most of his letters, including 2 Timothy, and jumps right into commanding Timothy to address the false teachings.2 This is a pastoral letter of correction written to Timothy out of concern for a group of Paul’s beloved congregations that have fallen prey to the “savage wolves.”

Paul had been Timothy’s mentor and friend for years, so this is a letter between close ministry colleagues addressing a matter of urgency. The tone of the letter is personal, not public.

Such a letter would be the “least likely context for making transcendent statements that override the general application of Paul’s teachings on spiritual gifts and leadership in the rest of the Pauline corpus.”3 The highly personal nature of the letter helps

18

• PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022

to account for linguistic and grammatical variations between this letter and Paul’s other writings, explains missing contextual details, and underscores the specific nature of the letter.4 Therefore, it is helpful to read this letter with Paul’s several others in mind to give us deeper insight into his theology and how he is applying his theology in this letter.

Scholars have attempted to place 2:8–15 within a category of Paul’s writings, often connecting these verses with the household codes (Eph 5:21–6:9, Col 3:18–4:1, cf. 1 Pet 3:1–7). While “man/ men” (anēr/andres, 2:8, 12) and “woman/women” (gunē/gunaikes, 2:9, 10, 11, 12, 14) can also be translated “husband(s)” and “wife/ wives,” as would be expected in the household codes, Paul is addressing widows and women who are resisting marriage; certainly, Paul is speaking about these particular women. Still, the passage is structured in a similar way to the household codes, with instructions for both men and women: A. Instruction for men regarding prayer B. Instruction for women i. Regarding prayer ii. Regarding education and authority However, Paul is not addressing the household here. He is addressing the church as a household, focusing on its mission and public witness in response to the increased false teachings spreading among the church community. The central theme of this passage is right conduct in worship. Men are stirring up anger and disputes, and women are flaunting their wealth and being disruptive in worship.5 Such things are not “advancing God’s work” (1:4b). This chief concern leads to the following instructions Paul gives Timothy for the community.

Historical Context As explained above, the central concern of this letter is the false teachings spreading in the Ephesian church. Almost every verse is related to how Timothy can root out its influence in the church community.6 While it is challenging to determine what exactly these false teachings are, the letter does offer us some clues.

The teachings forbade marriage and eating certain foods (4:3) and taught that godliness “is a means to financial gain” (6:5).

Several scholars link these false teachings to an over-realized eschatology.7 Wealthy widows in particular seem to have been attracted to these teachings because the teachings “affirmed . . . that they were already in the ideal (eschatological) state of being single before Christ. It proclaimed an exalted status for women and a freedom from the obligation of marriage.”8 The widows found freedom in these false teachings because they validated their unmarried status and their wealth. Not only were certain widows targets and adopters of these false teachings, but they were also among the ones spreading the teachings throughout

cbeinternational.org

the church. They were going house to house “talking nonsense” (5:13),9 and because the women were falling for these teachings, they had “turned away to follow Satan” (5:15). The false teachings, however, are only one contextual component at play in the problems arising in the church community.

Ephesus was also the center of the cult of Artemis, the Greek goddess of chastity and childbirth, and her followers turned to her for help to get through childbirth safely. In fact, “Artemis is regarded as the savior of laboring women.”10 Part of her myth is her superiority over men which stirred up similar sentiments in her followers.11 Her cult was so important to the culture of Ephesus that Luke reports a riot breaking out in the city over the fear that Paul’s message of the gospel would discredit Artemis (Acts 19:23–40). They were concerned she would be “robbed of her divine majesty” (v. 27), so the crowds chanted “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” for hours (v. 28). From the onset of the gospel reaching Ephesus there was conflict between the truth of the gospel and myths surrounding Artemis.

In addition to Greek influence, including the cult of Artemis, Ephesus was a province of Rome. The city was greatly influenced

by Roman culture and was a wealthy hub of trade and travel.

Because of this, the “new Roman woman” phenomenon likely spread there. The “new Roman woman” was a “sexual revolution” of sorts among Roman women.12 While, in the Greco-Roman world, women could not officially exercise authority in the public sphere, in practice, this was starting to change during the time of the NT.13 Roman women had more freedom than most other women to have roles in the public sphere, so they influenced the culture of other women in society. This was predominantly true for wealthy women because “financial security gave them power to act independently.”14 Wearing elaborate hairstyles, gold, pearls, and expensive clothing (2:9) were fashions of this “new Roman woman” trend. Wealthy Christian women seem to have been affected by this and were beginning to follow the trends they saw in broader society, changing their dress and exploring their freedom.

Verse-by-Verse Survey Right before the verses at hand, Paul appeals to the church to pray for all people, whom God wants to be saved (2:1–4). He wants all people “to come to a knowledge of the truth” (2:4b).

Paul is concerned about people who have strayed from the truth of the gospel. Longing for the community to live in peace and to be people of prayer, he addresses specific ways these ideals are not being lived out within the community.

Instructions for Men Regarding Prayer (2:8) Paul wants men to pray without anger or disputes, both of which go against his urging for peace within the community. Instead, they should lift up holy hands, a posture related to one’s holiness in life and attitude toward others. Graham Simpson points out that “the uplifted hand can be holy only if one’s heart is holy and one’s conduct is holy.”15 They must be in right relationship with God and with others before turning to God in prayer. Holy hands are also related to a tradition of extending hands to bless

cbeinternational.org

one another or to ask for God’s intervention in a situation.16 The false teaching had stirred up disputes and anger, but instead of turning to one another in anger, Paul urges them to bless one another and pray for God’s intervention. They should seek God in their disputes because harboring anger or stirring up conflicts would affect their ability to pray for the salvation of all people.

In doing so, they can model the truth of God’s peacefulness.

Instructions for Women (2:9–15) Because of the Ephesian context and the nature of the false teachings, Paul devotes a much larger section, compared to v. 8’s instruction to men, addressing how the women are behaving.

There is debate among scholars regarding the connection between these instructions for men and women. While Paul does not explicitly connect the instructions for women to the issue of prayer, it seems likely that he is still addressing conduct in prayer.17 To continue addressing prayer is in line with Paul’s overall concern of praying for the salvation of all people. Therefore, Paul has guidelines for them in response to the cultural issues affecting their community.

While anger and disputes were hindering the prayers of the men, Paul also gives prayer instructions regarding women. The problem for the women is pride and wealth. Because these verses are addressing how women should dress and the word translated as “modestly” is used, the sexual promiscuity of women is often read into the text here. However, two important points about these verses make it clear that Paul’s primary concern is how pride and wealth, not promiscuity, are hindering the prayers and public witness of the women.

First, Paul tells the women to dress modestly (aidous). This Greek word, like a few others in this chapter, only appears in the NT here. While this makes defining the word challenging enough, the word also plays almost no role in early Christian writings.18 In other contemporary Greek literature, the word is used to describe reverence before a god or dignitary, and it is related to presenting oneself respectably. In this sense, it expresses humility in relation to others. However, it can also describe a person’s habits or attitudes toward oneself, their “disposition of the soul.” While it later came to be linked to shamefulness, it is best understood as having a right view of oneself, neither too important nor too insignificant. To be sure, aidous describes one’s inner disposition, focused on how one views oneself and presents oneself to others. In Roman culture, clothing and personal values were linked.19 Therefore, Paul wants the women to dress in a way that best reflects their inner dispositions and values.

Secondly, Paul addresses more specifically how the women have been presenting themselves and how he desires them to present themselves instead. Paul names the specific ways women were dressing that were a problem: braided hair, gold, pearls, and expensive clothing. All of these are related to the “new Roman woman” and are signals of wealth. Paul is clearly not addressing all women, but only certain wealthy women, who were likely a minority in the church community. Therefore, this is in no way

PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022 • 19

a mandate for all women everywhere to dress in a certain way to combat sexual promiscuity; this is a critique against flaunting wealth or dressing in a way that does not reflect one’s Christian values. Simpson highlights this point as he applies this verse to his context in India: “in appearance-conscious societies such as India, this is an important lesson for a believing man also.”20 The same could be said of the appearance-conscious United States and various other cultures around the world. Paul is imploring wealthy Christian women not to pridefully display their wealth.

Instead, he urges the women to have a modest view of themselves and to present themselves “with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God” (2:10 NIV).

Paul turns next to combatting the false teachings in the church through the education of women. Verse 11 is the only command in the passage: “Let a woman learn [manthanetō] in quietness and all submission.” The verses that follow explain this command.

Paul wants women to be educated and to be good students. In this context, a good student—whether male or female—is a quiet one, “waiting to be filled up with the knowledge of the teacher.”21 The women have not been filled up with the knowledge of the truth (Paul’s prayer in 2:4), so they have been susceptible to false teachings. The solution is for women to be educated in the truth of the faith and to submit to this truth. What, after all, is the best way to combat false teachings but with learning the truth?

Paul gives similar instructions to women in 1 Cor 14:34–35.

Ben Witherington, noting the strong linguistic parallels between these passages, sees the 1 Timothy text as a development of the 1 Corinthians passage.22 Women should learn (variations of the same verb are used in both passages; see 1 Cor 14:31, 35) sound teaching and they should be quiet, submissive learners.23 In 1 Cor 14, Paul is not barring women from ever speaking (just a few chapters before in 11:5 he gives instruction to women who are prophesying and praying); instead, he is prohibiting disruptive speech. He uses the same imperative, “let them be silent [sigatōsan],” three times in 14:26–40: to instruct those speaking in tongues without an interpreter (v. 28), to a person who is speaking if another person has a revelation (v. 30), and to women who are asking questions during the worship gathering (v. 34). In a similar way, in 1 Timothy Paul is prohibiting disruptive speech, namely false teaching, and certain women have been among those causing the disruption. Therefore, Paul wants them to be quiet while they submissively learn the truth.

Paul is hoping to combat the spread of false teaching through women being educated in the truth, and by not permitting them authentein, translated in the NIV as “to assume authority” over men (2:12). First Timothy 2:12 is the most contentious verse of the passage, with every word having been dissected in scrutiny and whole books written on its implications. The main issue hinges on the meaning of authentein and, based on its meaning, the specificity or the timelessness of the prohibition given.

Authentein is another word in this passage that only occurs here in the NT. In fact, it is the first known occurrence of the verb form of this word in Greek.24 This makes defining the word incredibly challenging. There are several other words for 20

• PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022

authority Paul could have used. For example, he uses a different word in 2:2 to talk about praying for people in positions of authority (huperochē), so in 2:12, Paul is certainly talking about something different than a position of authority. Why would Paul use a word that is so unique, not only in his own writing but in contemporary literature? Where the word is found in other literature it generally has a negative connotation and is used in relation to activities initiated by oneself.25 The original meaning could mean something like “to do or to originate something with one’s own hand”26 or to be self-achieving.27 It is used elsewhere to describe a murderer or a perpetrator of a crime, and it often has a connotation of domination or being dictatorial.28 Linda Belleville concludes that “there is no first-century warrant for translating authentein as ‘to exercise authority’” (how the word is translated in the ESV, NASB, and NET).29 In its later use, the word has a variety of meanings, but the recipient of the action is always harmed or forced against their will.30 Therefore, “interpreting [authentein] as if it describes servant leadership and pastoral care is misleading in the extreme.”31 In short, it is an abuse of power.

To be clear, just because Paul is prohibiting women from acting this way does not mean it is permissible for men to act this way.

This is a negative use of authority by any person.

Paul is not permitting women to exercise abusive authority over men.32 It is here that understanding the cultural context of Ephesus is critical. The cult of Artemis reinforced the idea that women are superior to men and the “new Roman woman” phenomenon was encouraging wealthy women to seek independence, allowing them access to positions of power in society. Both influences were likely leading to uneducated women taking on self-appointed roles, through which they were spreading false teachings that were continuing to validate the way they were living. Therefore, Paul is not prohibiting women from having authority; Paul is prohibiting the kind of abusive authority that exists at the intersection of gender hierarchies, wealth, ease of access to power, and the spread of self-validating false teachings. In the Ephesian church at this time, it happened to be women who were exercising this kind of leadership. Philip Towner rightly argues that “under different circumstances the experiment of women, according to giftedness, taking on more and more roles within the church could have continued were it not for the combined detrimental effects of the heresy and the emerging controversial trend among wealthy women.”33 Understood in this light, the question is not about whether this prohibition universally applies to women but whether we take this prohibition seriously for all forms of abusive leadership in the church.

In 2:13–15, Eve becomes Paul’s example of how harmful false teachings are and how easily one can become deceived by such teachings. Women in the church were turning from truth to follow Satan (5:15), so Paul uses the most famous example of a woman being deceived to convey the gravity of what is at risk should these women continue having authority to spread their false teachings. Walter Kaiser argues that the reference to Adam and Eve being formed is not about creation order but

cbeinternational.org

about education (formation) since Adam was with God in the garden and received the command about not eating from the tree before Eve was formed.34 This interpretation fits well with Paul emphasizing that it was Eve who was deceived, if deception is seen as the antithesis of education. Lack of education in the truth makes one prone to being deceived by false teachings.

However, this reference to the creation account could also be a response to the abusive power being displayed by the women.

Towner sees the creation reference as a direct response to the competing cultural influences.35 Paul wants Timothy to remind these women that the woman, Eve, was formed second and was the one deceived. This is in no way to assert male dominance but to remind these women that God’s intention is not for women to be dominant either. After all, Paul had already written to the Ephesian church explaining his model of marriage. It is not about either husband or wife dominating the other; they must submit to one another (Eph 5:21).

Following the verses reminding women that it was a woman who was first deceived, Paul also reminds women about their salvation (2:15). Eve had fallen into transgression, but she will be saved (sōthēsetai, a singular verb, not plural as in the CEV, NASB, NIV, etc.). The challenging part of this verse is what follows: she will be saved through the childbearing/childbirth (tēs teknogonias). This is yet another word in this passage that only appears here in the NT. Where it is found in contemporary Greek literature, it is referring to childbirth, meaning the event of birth and not the process of raising children.36 How, then, is childbirth connected to the salvation of Eve and women?

It is worth noting that teknogonias has an article before it (“the childbirth”). This has led many scholars to connect the childbirth with the birth of Jesus and the protoevangelium (“first-gospel”) in Gen 3:15–16. Jesus is the child born of a woman who has crushed the head of the serpent and saved us all from the sin of Adam and Eve. Through this, Paul is reframing the eschatological hopes of the women who are following the false teachings because “Mary’s childbearing will save Eve in an eschatological sense and thus all women in and through Christ.”37 Might this, then, be a contextualization of the gospel for women who had turned to false teachings and have a history of relying on Artemis to be their savior, particularly during childbirth?38 Paul is reminding them of the gospel. Even those who, like Eve, have been deceived are saved through Christ.

Conclusion Amid his beloved church’s struggles to navigate their complex cultural waters, Paul’s central concern is the same as in his other letters. He wants the Christian community to live in a way that reflects the gospel well and to root out anything contrary to the truth of the gospel. This larger view of Paul’s concern puts his instructions to Timothy for men and women in their proper context, consistent with the rest of Paul’s ministry. Paul worked alongside women throughout his mission to spread the gospel, praising them for their ministry, commissioning them to deliver and read his letters to others, and entrusting them as leaders

cbeinternational.org

of the churches he began (e.g., Rom 16:1–16). Of particular relevance to understanding 1 Timothy is Priscilla, a leader of the church in Ephesus (Acts 18:18–26, 2 Tim 4:19). Women were proclaiming the gospel—in fact were the first proclaimers of the gospel (Matt 28:8–10, Luke 24:9–11, John 20:18)—and Paul continues to see them as vital to his mission. Paul does not want fewer people proclaiming the gospel; he wants more to proclaim the truth so that all people might be saved. How ought women and men today live in order to fulfill this mission of all people knowing salvation?

The temptation as we read these verses in 1 Timothy is to let the gender-specific phrasing of the instructions guide how we apply them to our lives, seeing the instructions for men as just for men and those for women as just for women. However, I propose that we read these verses as instructions for how the whole Christian community might reflect the gospel well and root out anything contrary to the truth of the gospel. After all, the issues being addressed by Paul are problems any person could perpetuate in the church.

These verses call Christians to examine how we are representing the gospel, particularly in our attitudes and postures during worship. We are challenged to turn to God in times of disputes instead of turning to one another in anger. The way that we deal with conflict reveals the postures of our hearts. Similarly, Paul confronts us with the reality of wealth disparities in our church communities and warns against flaunting our wealth.

Instead, we are called to think neither too highly of ourselves nor too little. The way we present ourselves should reflect our inward posture of humility before God. Paul also instructs us to examine how false teachings are perpetuated in our churches and offers two important ways we can combat such teachings: education in the truth and confronting abusive leadership in the church. Regarding education, this looks like offering accessible biblical training and spaces for ongoing theological reflection, especially for those who have historically not been given such opportunities. However, this also looks like evaluating those from whom we are learning. Who are the truth tellers in our midst? The people in power are not always, and in fact many times are not, the ones speaking the truth. Finally, Paul urges us to confront and root out abusive leadership in the church wherever we find it. Doing so will allow space for leaders who seek to shepherd those in their care the way that Paul cares for the church in Ephesus.

While Paul is addressing a specific situation in the church of Ephesus, the guidance he gives Timothy is instructive for the church today. Influenced by the cult of Artemis, the “new Roman woman,” and the nature of the false teachings, certain women— particularly wealthy women— were perpetuating problems in the church, including the continued spread of the false teachings. In 1 Timothy, Paul addresses his concerns about the church’s mission and public witness in the city and gives Timothy instructions for rooting out the spread of false teachings. Through this, Paul calls the church to be people of peace and prayer so that through their witness all people will come to know the truth of the gospel.

PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022 • 21

Notes 1. While there are scholars who question if Paul is the author of 1 Timothy, and therefore find the authority of these words suspect altogether, for the sake of this paper, I will assume that Paul did write 1 Timothy. See for example Annette Bourland Huizenga, 1–2 Timothy, Titus, Wisdom Commentary 53 (Liturgical, 2016) xlv–xlvii.

2. Linda L. Belleville, “Teaching and Usurping Authority: 1 Timothy 2:11–15,” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, ed. Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, 2nd ed.

(InterVarsity, 2005) 206.

3. Cynthia Long Westfall, Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s Vision for Men and Women in Christ (Baker Academic, 2016) 297.

4. Westfall, Paul and Gender, 284.

5. Belleville, “Teaching and Usurping Authority,” 207. For the view that this passage is not aimed at worship settings, see Westfall, Paul and Gender, 286–90.

6. Philip Barton Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters (Zondervan, 2009) 296.

7. Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT (Eerdmans, 2006) 197.

8. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ, 302.

9. Unlike most translations, NIV reads “nonsense” here in 5:13. For a discussion of translating the word in question, phluaroi, see Andrew Bartlett, “Worst Translations: All in One,” CT (Oct 30, 2020) §3, https:// christianitytoday.com/scot-mcknight/2020/october/worst-translationsall-in-one.html.

10. Dorothy A. Lee, The Ministry of Women in the New Testament: Reclaiming the Biblical Vision for Church Leadership (Baker Academic, 2021) 111.

11. Belleville, “Teaching and Usurping Authority,” 219.

12. Bruce W. Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities (Eerdmans, 2003) 21. See also Towner, Letters, 196.

13. Westfall, Paul and Gender, 260–62.

14. Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows, 22.

15. Graham Simpson, The Pastoral Epistles: 1–2 Timothy, Titus: An Exegetical and Contextual Commentary, India Commentary on the New Testament (Fortress, 2017) 48.

16. Towner, Letters, 202.

17. Walter C. Kaiser, “Correcting Caricatures: Biblical Teaching on Women,” Priscilla Papers 19/2 (Spring 2005) 8; Frank Ritchel Ames and Jeffrey D. Miller, “Prayer and Syncretism in 1 Timothy,” ResQ 52/2 (2010) 65–80; reprinted as ch. 8 in Women in the Biblical World: A Survey of Old and New Testament Perspectives, vol. 2, ed. Elizabeth A. McCabe (University Press of America, 2011) 94–111.

18. Rudolf Bultmann, Αἱδὼς, TDNT 1:171.

19. TDNT 1:169; Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows, 101.

20. Simpson, Pastoral Epistles, 49.

21. Huizenga, 1–2 Timothy, Titus, 25.

22. Ben Witherington, Women in the Earliest Churches, SNTSMS (Cambridge University Press, 1988) 117.

23. Westfall, Paul and Gender, 306.

24. Westfall, Paul and Gender, 290.

25. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ, 363.

26. Belleville, “Teaching and Usurping Authority,” 212.

27. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ, 363.

28. Belleville, “Teaching and Usurping Authority,” 212.

29. Belleville, “Teaching and Usurping Authority,” 216.

22

• PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022

30. Westfall, Paul and Gender, 292.

31. Westfall, Paul and Gender, 294. On authentein, see further Jamin Hübner, “Translating αὐϑεντέω (authenteō) in 1 Timothy 2:12,” Priscilla Papers 29/2 (Spring 2015) 16–26; Cynthia Long Westfall, “The Meaning of αὐϑεντέω in 1 Timothy 2.12,” JGRChJ 10 (2014) 138–73.

32. Witherington argues that one of the key issues Paul is correcting in 2:8–15 is abuse in worship; Witherington, Women in the Earliest Churches, 119.

33. Towner, Letters, 200.

34. Kaiser, “Correcting Caricatures,” 9.

35. Towner, Letters, 228–32.

36. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ, 433.

37. Lee, The Ministry of Women in the New Testament, 111.

38. See Ames and Miller, “Prayer and Syncretism in 1 Timothy.”

ELIZA STILES received an MA in systematic theology from Wheaton College and is a Master of Divinity candidate at North Park Theological Seminary in Chicago, Illinois. She is passionate about advocating for gender equality in the church and helping middle and high school students feel at home in their church communities. In 2020, Priscilla Papers published Eliza’s article, “‘Precious Food of True Life’: Christ Our Mother, Female Embodiment, and the Eucharist in Julian of Norwich’s Revelations of Divine Love,” in tandem with her being among the recipients of CBE’s annual Alvera Mickelsen Memorial Scholarship.

Gifts that Reduce Taxes Stock, Real Estate, Life Insurance, IRA Funds, and Other Non-Cash Assets Increase your potential impact—and experience significant tax benefits—by giving non-cash assets.

Bene��ts Reduce your taxes! Receive a fair market value deduction at the time of your gift and avoid tax liability on the sale of appreciated assets.

Eliminate hassles! Give assets you no longer need or want to manage (such as rental properties or vacation homes).

Simplify your estate planning! Eliminate potential taxes or complications for your heirs by giving complex or burdensome assets.

For more information, call us at 612-872-6898 or email cbe@cbeinternatonal.org.

cbeinternational.org

Social Action and the Canaanite Woman of Matthew 15 Molly Tomashek

21 Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22 Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.” 23 But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.” 24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26 He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” 27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” 28 Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.”

And her daughter was healed from that moment.

Matthew 15:21–28 NRSVue Matthew 15:21–28 raises many questions for the modern reader—social questions regarding racism and sexism, theological questions about Jesus’s character and practice, and literary questions concerning imagery and context. Similarly, the worlds behind the text, within the text, and in front of the text reveal ambiguity and tension. Late first-century Syrian Antioch, the likely setting for the community that first encountered Matthew’s Gospel, found Jewish Christians in a liminal space religiously, politically, and culturally.1 Within the text itself, the “world within the text,” Jesus and the Canaanite woman meet outside of cultural norms and expected physical boundaries, in an enigmatic space.2 Many readers of this text find themselves in a similar interstice, as they lose the ability to remain apathetic toward injustice and, thus, move toward engagement in social reform. Interpreting Matt 15:21–28 from a socio-rhetorical approach informs the modern reader’s engagement for social change as seen in the text’s dialogue, characterization, Jewish perspective, and contextual significance.

The World Behind the Text: Historical Context As mentioned above, the Gospel of Matthew may well have been written within a Jewish Christian community in Syrian Antioch, about 250 miles (400 kilometers) north of Galilee.

“Social pressures” experienced by the community included “Gentile persecution from Romans and Syrians . . . hostility from Pharisees . . . and internal pressure to welcome local Jesus-believing Gentiles.”3 Along with these relatively new conflicts, and in light of Jesus’s mandate to “love your enemies,” the Matthean community living in the Diaspora faced the dilemma of reframing relationships with ancient enemies, such as the Canaanites.4 The Canaanites were Israel’s long-standing enemies, the people who had stood between the early Israelites and their promised land.5 The Canaanites’ “idolatrous religion was a constant threat to the religious purity of the people of

cbeinternational.org

Yahweh.”6 Syrian Antioch’s early Christians sought to create a “new and emerging identity,” while engaging in reconciliation with their historic and political enemies.7

The World of the Text: Literary and Rhetorical Context A conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees over religious purity (15:1–20) precedes the narrative in which Jesus and the “unclean” Canaanite woman publicly converse outside of Israel, northwest of Galilee in the land of Tyre and Sidon.8 Immediately following, Jesus returns to Galilee where he heals “the lame, the blind, the mute, and many others” (15:29–31) and feeds over 4,000 people (15:32–39). Our text is situated between Jesus’s rebuke of the Pharisees’ tradition that made “void the word of God” (15:6) and Jesus’s public ministry where verbal praise of God (15:31, 36) and care of those in physical need (15:30–31, 37) were experienced together. Jesus’s conversations with the Pharisees and the Canaanite woman, the center of a chiasm,9 act as a mirror to the Pharisees’ hypocrisy and the disciples’ apathy. The Canaanite woman’s humility (15:25) juxtaposes with the Pharisees’ hypocrisy (15:7). Her meek willingness to eat crumbs (15:27) magnifies the abundance in the surrounding feedings (14:13–21, 15:32–39), and Jesus’s acknowledgement of her “great faith” (15:28) stands in stark contrast to the disciples’ “little faith” (14:28–33, 16:5–12).10 Indeed, Matthew presents the Canaanite woman as a model of Christlikeness.

Tension mounts as the story opens in a foreign land and three requests are met by Jesus’s cold responses of silence, denial, and insult.11 Jesus’s rudeness seems more consistent with the Pharisees than with his usual compassion; the Canaanite is the one who displays humility and offers creative repartee that exemplifies the Jesus of Matthew (15:25).12 The Canaanite woman’s willingness to take on a form lesser than her own (a dog) and humbly counter Jesus’s stated practice leaves the reader in suspense (15:27). Tension releases as Jesus sounds more like

PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022 • 23

himself, exalting her for her “great faith,” and immediately healing her daughter (15:28).

Analysis: Setting (15:21) The episode opens with Jesus’s withdrawal into a foreign location, Tyre and Sidon, which already sets the Jewish reader on edge (v.

21).13 Jesus leaves the land of Israel (the last places mentioned were Gennesaret [14:34] in Galilee and Jerusalem [15:1] of Judea) and enters the land of the Gentiles (v. 21). Because Tyre and Sidon are “outside Jewish territory,” and earlier in Matthew Jesus tells his disciples to “go nowhere among the Gentiles,” one needs to ask why Jesus is here.14 If Tyre and Sidon were “paradigms of Israel’s enemies of old,” what could Matthew be showing the reader as Jesus flees his antagonists, the Pharisees, while entering the land of his people’s age-old enemies?15 I propose this shift in location is setting the stage for a paradigm shift for his disciples and the reader.

Analysis: The First Unit of Request and Response (15:22–23a) As Jesus enters the region, a Canaanite woman comes out toward him, leaving her home and troubled daughter, shouting, begging him to “have mercy” on her (v. 22). The use of “Canaanite” in the text, versus “Syro-Phoenician” seen in the parallel version in Mark 7:26, polarizes the Jewish reader with the woman creating an “us” and “them” binary system.16 Her cry for mercy harkens to “the mandate given to Israel to exterminate the Canaanites,” to “show no mercy to them.”17 Jesus’s silent response is striking, even rude, pulling the reader in with questions about Jesus’s loving nature and integrity (v. 23a). Many scholars have debated the meaning behind Jesus’s silence, suggesting he was “testing her faith” or “playing hard to get,” but Elaine Wainwright’s insight that Jesus’s silence reflects the word made void in 15:6 changes the text completely.18 Jesus’s reticence echoes the Pharisees’ refusal to acknowledge the needs of suffering people, while the Canaanite woman’s selfless cry looks more like the “justice, mercy, and faith” Jesus esteems (Matt 23:23).

Analysis: The Second Unit of Request and Response (15:23b–24) The disciples assert themselves into the dead air, urging Jesus to dismiss the woman, which evokes a restatement from Jesus of his mission that would render him exempt from this interaction (vv.

23b–24). The disciples’ use of “us” and Jesus’s declaration that he has been “sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” reinforce Jewish primacy and the otherness of the Canaanite woman.19 Both Jesus and the disciples still have not addressed the woman directly, but rather patronizingly talk as if she is not there, another example of the disciples’ “insensitivity toward needy people (cf. 14:15; 15:32–33).”20 To continue with Wainwright’s observation that Jesus’s silence (v. 23a) mirrors the word made void (v. 6), Jesus’s restatement of his mission (v. 24) typifies the Pharisees’ traditions that deny care (vv. 4–5).

Analysis: The Third Unit of Request and Response (15:25–26) As the woman moves into Jesus’s space, affronting his silence and denial with another cry for help, the reader is left with 24

• PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022

mounting tension and confusion. Jesus now not only denies but insults her (vv. 25–26). The woman’s bowing and dire “Lord, help me” “[heighten] her desperation” within the text (v. 25).21 “The woman’s position of profound humility and lowliness out of the spotlight is an acknowledgment that the world is not structured in a way that typically makes room for her needs and desires.”22 Scholars have attempted to reconcile Jesus’s response in which he refers to the woman as a dog—emphasizing the “diminutive” connotation, comparing it to other “unclean” references, or continuing the commentary on Jesus’s challenge to her faith (v.

26).23 None of these explanations adequately dismiss Jesus from the accountability such a dehumanizing comment requires.24 Rightly so, according to his own words in the immediately preceding context: “it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles” (15:11 NRSVue). The incompatibility of Jesus’s words evokes a cry for justice within the reader. Yet as the words fall from the lips of the anointed one, Matthew is continuing to expose the unclean hearts of his Jewish readers.25 Analysis: The Fourth Unit of Request and Response (15:27–28) The Canaanite woman “turns Jesus’ own parable against him.”26 Some scholars claim her retort epitomizes the “theology of the election of Israel” as a first fruit that will bless the nations.27 This popular reading, however, may miss the point by looking at the word “dogs” instead of her bold world-changing use of “their” (“their masters’ table,” v. 27). By declaring the master as her own, she inserts herself into the kingdom of God. Wainwright calls her “the catalyst . . . the ‘foremother’ of all gentile Christians,” which makes her representation of Christ all that more compelling.28 As her retort hangs in the air and the reader waits in suspense for Jesus’s response, suddenly the story turns on its head with Jesus’s accolade: “Woman, great is your faith!” (v. 28).29 In an instant, Jesus—compassionate and responsive—apparently has come to himself and heals her daughter. The nightmare of being ignored, denied, and insulted has ended; the Canaanite woman is seen, blessed, and applauded.

The World in Front of the Text: Application By following the conversation of Jesus and the Pharisees (15:1– 20) with the dialogue in this story, and then leading into Jesus’s healing and feeding the masses, Matthew allows Jesus’s actions to expose the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and to envision a world free from the bounds of tradition and remade by love. Matthew’s Jewish Christian readers would have been emboldened to love their enemies in tangible ways, refusing to succumb to their historic practices that thwarted love. In the same way, this passage is prescriptive for those—including those within communities such as the White evangelical church of America—who have historically ignored, denied, and dehumanized people suffering from systemic injustice. Often this segment of the church has remained complicit, making claims such as, “We do not talk about politics; we are about Jesus,” spurning the social gospel as no gospel at all. In response to this denial of justice, Matthew exalts the most surprising of people, the one the leaders had been trying to keep silent and to demonize. In Matthew’s text, Jesus celebrates

cbeinternational.org

and serves the one who demonstrates perspective, inclusivity, humility, and others-centeredness. Reading about this encounter, the modern reader cannot sit idly by, ignoring the cries of those in need, and expect Jesus to applaud. Jesus turns away from the traditions that stifled love. As Jesus came to himself, so too can all people arise from their slumber and apathy in regard to social justice, embracing it as part of the wholistic mission of Jesus.

Conclusion By looking at the dialogue, characterization, context, and socioreligious features within the text of Matt 15:21–28, one can move beyond a traditional reading that oversimplifies the ugliness of Jesus’s response to critical need. One cannot merely gloss over Jesus’s silence, patronization, and dehumanization—but perhaps that is Matthew’s point. Injustice should stir us, sicken us even, to the point that we engage with practical acts of mercy. Jesus’s example does not give us permission to deny justice to the oppressed; in the story, he is the mirror that exposes what lies within the reader. Early in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says, “For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (5:20 NRSVue). By the end of this story in ch. 15, Jesus has done just that: his righteousness exceeds all bounds of tradition and law, moving beyond words into action, loving those his culture taught him to hate. Just as Jesus has stepped outside of Israel to undo the harmful paradigm of the Pharisees, our stepping out of what is familiar will situate us in a space ripe for a new kingdom vision that is not mere words, but social action.

Notes 1. Love L. Sechrest, “Enemies, Romans, Pigs, and Dogs: Loving the Other in the Gospel of Matthew,” ExAud 31 (2015) 88, 105.

2. “Theologically addressing a Jew in his own terms, a lone woman yet prior resident of the region and of the claimed homeland of the addressee, shouting in the public arena but in the careful words of a Jewish religious devotee, the character of the Canaanite woman breaks the power of binary opposition as dichotomy since she is both A and Not-A and neither.” Anita Munro, “Alterity and the Canaanite Woman: A Postmodern Feminist Theological Reflection on Political Action,” Colloq 26/1 (1994) 41.

3. Sechrest, “Enemies,” 105.

4. Matt 5:44. “Because it was written in Greek scholars propose that it was written outside of Judea, possibly an urban environment.” Peter H. Davids and Ralph P. Martin, “Matthean Community,” DLNT 725.

5. In Deut 7:1–6 (NRSV, NRSVue, and various other translations), God commands Israel, upon entering “the land,” to “utterly destroy” the Canaanites along with six other nations, in order to keep marriages within Israel pure and to prevent idol worship. “Canaanites are the quintessential enemies of Israel, the ones God had commanded them to exterminate because their sins were so extreme that contact with them, especially through intermarriage, would lead Israel into idolatry and immorality.” Grant LeMarquand, “The Canaanite Conquest of Jesus,” ARC: The Journal of the Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University 33 (2005) 238.

6. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans, 2007) 423.

7. Miranda Pillay, “Good News for All? A Feminist Perspective on the Gospel of Matthew,” Scriptura 114/1 (2015) 5; Davids and Martin,

cbeinternational.org

“Matthean Community,” 725: “Basing their arguments on the Gentile emphasis (Mt 1:1–17; 2:1–12; 4:12–16; 8:5–13; 15:21–28; 28:16–20), the use of the phrase ‘their synagogues’ (Mt 4:23) and the heated debate with the Pharisees (e.g., Mt 23), a number of scholars now argue that Matthew's community was already separated from Judaism and is to be understood as the church.”

8. The commentary about purity in Matt 15:10–20 “is put into practice with ‘unclean Gentiles’ in this passage.” David L. Turner, Matthew (Baker Academic, 2014) 357.

9. Elaine Mary Wainwright, Towards a Feminist Critical Reading of the Gospel According to Matthew (de Gruyter, 1991) 100–1; Janice Capel Anderson, “Matthew: Gender and Reading,” 25–51 in A Feminist Companion to Matthew, ed. Amy-Jill Levine and Marianne Blickenstaff (Sheffield Academic, 2001; Pilgrim, 2004) 37. Wainwright and Anderson label Matt 15:21–28 as the fulcrum in a chiastic structure emphasizing the feeding of many. Wainwright’s combination of Matt 15:1–20 and 15:21–28 as one unit reinforces the idea that this conversation in Tyre and Sidon is in reaction to the conflict that had recently occurred in the land of Israel between Jesus and the Pharisees.

10. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 423, suggests that, in Matt 15:32– 38, Jesus puts feet to “sharing ‘the children’s bread’ with ‘the dogs,’” and “relaxation of the Jewish ‘purity’ culture” by feeding a group of Gentiles and Jews.

11. Turner, Matthew, 386, suggests a four-set request/response structure to the text: “The drama of repeated requests and responses heightens the reader’s anticipation as Jesus places obstacle after obstacle in front of the woman.” Gail R. O’Day’s structure—the Canaanite woman and Jesus (15:22–23a), the disciples and Jesus (15:23b–24), the Canaanite woman and Jesus (15:25–28)—sets up the woman as protagonist (“initiator-goad-initiator”) which reinforces the idea that her actions are the ideal in the text: O’Day, “Surprised by Faith: Jesus and the Canaanite Woman,” 114–24 in A Feminist Companion to Matthew, 117.

12. The Pharisees deny people: fellowship in Matt 9:11, legitimacy of healing in Matt 9:34, 12:24, food in Matt 12:2, and financial support in Matt 15:5. Jesus displays compassion in Matt 9:36, 14:14. Jesus rebuts false interpretations of Scripture or knowledge of God in Matt 3:15; 4:4, 7, 10; 8:20, 22; 9:3–6, 15–17; 12:3–8, 11–12, 26, 39, 48–50; 13:57; 15:3.

13. The NRSVue uses the phrase “went away,” but I prefer “withdrew” found in the NASB, NIV, and NABRE, because “withdrew” more aptly connotes hiding away or seeking refuge, which amplifies the effect of the opposition Jesus faced from the Pharisees in the previous section. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 423, concurs that Jesus is seeking “a retreat to a place where [he] and his disciples could be away from Jewish opposition and Jewish crowds.” See also Wainwright, Towards a Feminist Critical Reading, 110: “Jesus was presented going into a gentile territory to seek refuge.”

14. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 423; cf. Matt 10:5.

15. Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew (Broadman, 1992) 166. Isa 23; Ezek 26, 28; Amos 1:9–10 refer to Tyre and Sidon as Israel’s enemies.

16. Munro, “Alterity,” 37. Also Musa W. Dube Shomanah, Postcolonial Feminist Interpretation of the Bible (Chalice, 2000) 146: “Jerusalem and Canaan are not only place names but also ideologically loaded geographical markers. The former represents Israel’s political and cultural center, controlled by the implied author’s rival group, and the latter recalls memories of conquering and possessing a foreign land.”

17. LeMarquand, “The Canaanite Conquest of Jesus,” 242; cf. Deut 7:2.

18. Wainwright, Towards a Feminist Critical Reading, 107; Turner, Matthew, 387; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 421, 424.

19. Jesus’s words, “sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” echo Matt 10:6, language that a Jewish reader would interpret as

PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022 • 25

prioritizing Jews, and harkening texts from the OT: Isa 53:6, Jer 50:6, Ezek 34:15. See Turner, Matthew, 387.

20. Turner, Matthew, 387. Both Jesus and the disciples remind the reader of what Sechrest, “Enemies,” 81, calls the “trope of the fragile white victim who shifts attention away from the oppression experienced by people of color and unto the lesser problems surrounding white identity.”

21. Dube Shomanah, Postcolonial Feminist Interpretation, 139.

22. Sechrest, “Enemies,” 102.

23. Turner, Matthew, 388; France, The Gospel of Matthew, 425; Sechrest, “Enemies,” 98.

24. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 422: “Jesus appears insensitive and downright rude not only in his refusal to act but also in speaking of Gentiles as ‘dogs’ and implying that they can expect no consideration from him as the Jewish Messiah.” Dube Shomanah, Postcolonial Feminist Interpretation, 153, names this a stroke of imperialism: “Rather, the outsiders must not only be characterized as evil and dangerous, womenlike, and worthless dogs but also be seen as those who beg for salvation from a very reluctant and nationalistic Jesus.”

25. This strategy harkens Nathan’s prophetic story of the sheep that he used to call out David’s abuse of Bathsheba and murder of Uriah (2 Sam 12:1–7). Matthew uses this story of beloved Jesus with the “unclean” Canaanite woman, a preposterous encounter to Jewish ears, to call out

their own lack of engagement with those who are suffering, especially those they have historically demonized.

26. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 425.

27. France, The Gospel of Matthew, 425. This theology references Gen 12:3 and Isa 49:6.

28. Wainwright, Towards a Feminist Critical Reading, 113. Surely her catalytic faith follows Jesus’s lead as the “pioneer” of faith (Heb 12:2).

29. O’Day, “Surprised by Faith,” 125, suggests that Jesus was changed by the woman’s boldness; see also O’Day, “Surprised by Faith,” 117: “In our story, Jesus is not the protagonist; the Canaanite woman is.” This is the only example in Matthew of Jesus labeling someone’s faith as “great” (France, The Gospel of Matthew, 425).

MOLLY TOMASHEK is worship minister at Pilgrim Congregational Church in Green Bay, Wisconsin, and is nearing completion of an MDiv at Fuller Theological Seminary. She and her husband, Scott, have four wonderful children. Read more from Molly at her blog, LifeInPracticeDotBlog.wordpress.com.

SAVE THE DATE! NOV 29, 2022

It is vital that CBE continues to reach people worldwide with the transforming message that women and men were created to share authority equally. That is why we are using CBE’s Giving Tuesday fundraiser to raise funds that will strengthen CBE’s new website resources and expand our reach.

Your gift will support CBE’s podcast, eLearning courses, and radio spots.

These projects are strategic in reaching and educating new global audiences and the next generation.

Our goal is to raise �110,000 by the end of Giving Tuesday.

Please help us establish a strong campaign by giving today at cbe.today/gt.

Thank you for partnering with CBE to reach more people with the message that God values women!

26

• PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022

cbeinternational.org

The Ministry of Women and the Merger of Church and State in Fourth-Century Christianity Shelley Siemens Janzen

The Jesus movement in early Christian history introduced a scandalous egalitarian message to the Greco-Roman world.

This informal, adaptable, and often counter-cultural movement challenged conventions by welcoming marginalized women and slaves to serve as leaders. According to sociologist Rodney Stark, “there is virtual consensus among historians of the early church as well as biblical scholars that women held positions of honor and authority within early Christianity.”1 Given the ministry opportunities for women in the apostolic church, we should expect to see this pattern replicated as Christianity spread. However, as this movement organized through the second and third centuries, a variety of forces began to surface in the institutionalizing church that curtailed these possibilities. Ultimately, despite noteworthy female initiative and leadership in the development of Christianity, the institutional merger with the Roman Empire in the fourth century was pivotal in the suppression of the NT pattern.

The New Testament Pattern The NT gives evidence of women’s exemplary leadership in the emerging church. Priscilla is an example of a woman who thought wisely about the gospel and taught other leaders in the church. “The prototype of the didaskalos [‘teacher’] is the apostolic theologian Priscilla, who when the rhetorically skilled Alexandrian Apollos arrived in Ephesus ‘gave him further instruction about the Way.’”2 Mention of Priscilla before her husband, Aquila, in Acts 18 breaks with tradition and may indicate her leadership.3 By including this story, the narrator reveals new roles that women were adopting as coworkers in the Christian community.

Phoebe is another example of a woman championed in the NT for her leadership ministry. “The clearest NT identification of an individual with titles associated with senior local church leadership is not a man at all, but a woman: ‘Phoebe deacon . . . of the church in Cenchrea. I ask you to receive her . . . for she has been a leader of many’ (Rom. 16:1–2).”4 Her role as the deliverer of Paul’s letter to the Romans was significant as it involved being chosen as Paul’s representative, undergoing lengthy theological preparation, and presenting the letter with rhetorical skill to house churches in Rome.5 Due to the focus of this article, an extensive list of examples is not necessary; instead, one final example of early female leadership will suffice. Romans 16:7 records that Junia was an apostle who suffered imprisonment with Paul and was also outstanding or prominent among the apostles. Though contested by certain biblical interpreters due to the obvious egalitarian leadership connotations, that Junia was a woman, and an apostle, was accepted by virtually all early and medieval commentators.6 Consider Chrysostom’s unambiguous statement: “To be an apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the apostles— just think what a wonderful song of praise that is!”7

cbeinternational.org

The Constantinian Shift Unfortunately, this gift- and service-based leadership was drastically redirected as the church entered a privileged political merger with the Roman Empire. “The most impressive transitory change underlying our common experience, one that some thought was a permanent forward lunge in salvation history, was the so-called Constantinian shift.”8 In 325, the Council of Nicaea convened, and the once-persecuted church consolidated under the leadership of Emperor Constantine. “Even though many ‘Constantinian’ tendencies began before the fourth century and reached their culmination only much later, the term ‘Constantinianism’ serves as a schematic designation for the profound changes that took place as a result of the Christian faith’s becoming the official religion of the whole of society.”9 This transformation into “Christendom,” with the embedded loss of distinctiveness, would have a significantly negative impact on women in ministry.

Initial political outcomes of the Constantinian shift that negatively impacted women in ministry included the dramatic change in both the status and function of church leadership. Now that the church was sponsored by Rome, Christianity was attracting members of the municipal ruling elites, who were trained for public life and experienced in city politics. Many Christian communities welcomed these aristocratic members, and they moved quickly into leadership positions.

These men were schooled in the institutions of public life. . . . [They] brought into the churches new leadership models, models that had proved effective for governing large and diverse communities.10 Increasingly, distinguished and aristocratic church leaders were also civic leaders. The leadership infrastructure of the church began to reflect the prominence of clerical leadership and these new, more overtly political roles. The office of bishop became more monarchical and modeled after civic leadership. Since women’s civic roles were limited, women’s leadership in the church became more contested and controversial.11 Ultimately, fewer women held ecclesiastical office as the state-sponsored church adopted civic responsibility and Greco-Roman political models.

A further political shift that had regrettable consequences for women’s ministry was the opportunity for fourth-century churches to operate in government sponsored, imperial-style locations. “Christian communities moved their meetings out of the courtyards of members’ households and into elegant new purpose-built basilicas with marble columns. In many cases, the new basilicas were paid for by the Emperor himself—indeed, the original meaning of the term ‘basilica’ is an audience-chamber for a king (basileus).”12 Christian worship locations came to reflect the most dignified centers of governmental authority. As the physical

PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022 • 27

architecture of the church transformed into these elaborate spaces, Christian leadership became associated with secular government and lordship, which subordinated the ministry of women.

It is worth examining how these political changes in status, responsibility, structure, and location directly affected the definition of Christian leadership. Whereas in the early decades of the church, leaders were recognized by exemplary, functional service, leadership now moved toward the model of civic councils. Consequently, “the concept of leadership began to shift subtly from ministry to governance. An important development of this transition was the growing divide between the clergy and the laity. The language in which this demarcation was cast echoed the division in city politics between the rulers and the subjects.”13 The prior understanding that leaders existed to build up the body, of which Christ was the direct Lord, began to resemble secular definitions of governmental leadership. “In the Constantinian perspective . . . there no longer exists a people over whom God directly exercises his lordship; the emperor and his like have occupied God’s place.”14 Roman political hierarchy and concepts of intermediary rank and status became emphasized within Christian understandings of leadership. Women who were functioning as exemplary ministers now found their service redefined with suppressive parameters.

These political transformations of the church during the Constantinian shift introduced a range of sociological changes to Christians in general and to the women of the church in particular. “At the beginning of the second century, the Christian community was perhaps 0.1 percent of an imperial population of maybe 60 million. By the time of Constantine, it constituted perhaps 10 percent. . . . Now the number of converts began to soar. By the 380s, it may well have made up the majority of the imperial population.”15 The journey from a persecuted minority group to the official religion of Rome inside of fifty years dramatically affected the membership and social dynamics of the church. A community that had been deeply committed and socially risky evolved into an institutional affiliation constrained by social custom.

This massive sociological change in church constituency had direct ramifications for women’s social experience in the church.

To begin with, “a wider mix of women found themselves drawn under its canopy. Of course, some of the Christian women of the fourth century came from families that had adhered to the faith from its earliest days, but far more numerous were those to whom the stories and doctrines of the Christians were something of a novelty.”16 This amalgamation of a large portion of secular men and women with a socially unique church unfortunately resulted in a movement toward conventional social restrictions for women. Social behaviour “experienced a regression toward greater conformity with the patterns of the dominant secular culture. The Church, as it moved forward into the early Middle Ages, moved backward in its social structures. Perhaps the group most adversely affected by this regression were the devout Christian women, many of whom would never . . . use the gifts God had granted them.”17 The charismatic ministry of women found little support within the strict Roman social hierarchy 28

• PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022

of early Christendom. One example of this move toward social convention was in the church’s limitation of women’s ministry in what Romans considered male domains. In general, public spaces were considered the social realm of men, and the privacy of the home was the sphere of women. As churches moved to public locations, these public vs. private social structures made women’s leadership more controversial.18 These social patterns incorporated by the church found their source in suppressive Greco-Roman gender philosophy.

Christianity’s movement toward distinct spheres of influence based on gender can be traced to classical Greek philosophical ideas, in particular to Aristotle’s notion of essential gender identity, in which women were considered incomplete men.19 The prevailing dualism of classical thought, in which men were superior to women, precluded women from Roman leadership categories. Theology at this time reflected much of this hierarchal philosophy. “Augustine of Hippo, in On the Literal Meaning of Genesis, wondered why God made women at all. . . . Augustine saw the leadership/submission dichotomy as built into the texture of creation.”20 Tertullian, whose writings remained influential in the fourth century, further mirrored classical leadership philosophies. In his vision, women’s behaviour would again conform to the standards of a lost golden age—not, unfortunately, the golden age of the Jesus movement’s radical egalitarianism, but of Rome’s restrictive understanding of gender roles.21

Relevance for the Church Today The topic of women in church leadership continues to be directly relevant and hotly contested. Reevaluation of leadership definitions and structures is challenging the remaining Constantinian trappings. Service-focused definitions of church leadership still face opposition from those who define church leaders as men holding an office of government within a God-ordained institutional hierarchy. For example, “the complementarians’ more hierarchal understanding of church structure tends to undermine their good intention to maintain a servant focus. It is difficult to see pastors primarily as servants of God’s people when ordination appears to endow a privileged few with power and status.”22 A move away from the historically secular definition of leaders as office-bearers and toward the organic NT recognition of exemplary ministry is needed.

Many would argue today that a fundamental revision of church leadership structure and even church location is necessary to facilitate charismatic ministry and revival. “Simply letting women ‘join the old boys’ club’ solves very little. . . . [If] male-dominated, overly hierarchal modes of church management remain in place . . . then the ordination of women turns out to be a questionable victory.”23 A move away from what some regard as efficient military or corporate church structures toward a congregational model is required. Another option could include a move to more informal gathering places, which might foster creativity and growth consistent with the example of the early church. “Studies have demonstrated that the ‘success rate’ of missionary encounters that take place in the home of a friend or family member is five hundred times higher than encounters in an institutional setting or a public place.”24

cbeinternational.org

Conclusion The search for precedent should be rooted in the NT examples of women recognized by Jesus, as well as Paul and other NT authors, as functional leaders. A historical framework is also valuable for contextualizing current debates and recognizing definitions and structures that continue to sideline or suppress women in church ministry. “Understanding why and how women, once leaders in the Jesus movement and in the early church, were marginalized and scapegoated as Christianity became the state religion is crucial if women are to reclaim their rightful, equal place in the church today.”25

Notes 1. Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries (HarperSanFrancisco, 1997) 109.

2. John Howard Yoder, The Priestly Kingdom: Social Ethics as Gospel (University of Notre Dame Press, 1985) 33.

3. Priscilla is named first in Acts 18:18 and 26, where the context is ministry. Earlier, in 18:2, Aquila is named first when the couple is introduced. In Paul’s writings, Priscilla is named first twice (Rom 16:3, 2 Tim 4:19), and Aquila is named first once (1 Cor 16:19).

4. Philip B. Payne, “Is It True That in the New Testament No Women, Only Men, Are Identified by Name as Elders, Overseers, or Pastors, and that Consequently Women Must Not Be Elders, Overseers, Or Pastors?,” 1, http://pbpayne.com/?p=501.

5. Jeffrey D. Miller, “What Can We Say about Phoebe?,” Priscilla Papers 25/2 (Spring 2011) 17.

6. Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels (Eerdmans, 2002) 166. See also Dennis J. Preato, “Junia, a Female Apostle: An Examination of the Historical Record,” Priscilla Papers 33/2 (Spring 2019) 8–15.

7. Eldon Jay Epp, Junia: The First Woman Apostle (Fortress, 2005) 32.

8. John Howard Yoder, “Is There Such a Thing as Being Ready for Another Millennium?,” in The Future of Theology: Essays in Honor

of Jurgen Moltmann, ed. Miroslav Volf, Carmen Krieg, and Thomas Kucharz (Eerdmans, 1996) 63.

9. Antonio Gonzalez, God’s Reign and the End of Empires (Convivium, 2012) 274.

10. Karen Torjesen, When Women Were Priests, reprint (HarperOne, 1995) 155–56.

11. Torjesen, When Women Were Priests, 157.

12. Kate Cooper, Band of Angels: The Forgotten World of Early Christian Women (Overlook, 2013) 140.

13. Torjesen, When Women Were Priests, 156.

14. Gonzalez, God’s Reign and the End of Empires, 275.

15. Kevin Madigan, Medieval Christianity: A New History (Yale University Press, 2015) 20.

16. Cooper, Band of Angels, 140.

17. Ben Witherington III, Women in the Earliest Churches (Cambridge University Press, 1988) 210.

18. Torjesen, When Women Were Priests, 157.

19. Carrie L. Bates, “Gender Ontology and Women in Ministry in the Early Church,” Priscilla Papers 25/2 (Spring 2011) 6.

20. Bates, “Gender Ontology,” 7–8.

21. Torjesen, When Women Were Priests, 158.

22. Stanley J. Grenz and Denise Muir Kjesbo, Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry, 7th ed. (IVP Academic, 1995) 218.

23. Grenz and Kjesbo, Women in the Church, 230.

24. Cooper, Band of Angels, 11–12.

25. Ian Jones, Kirsty Thorpe, and Janet Wootton, eds., Women and Ordination in the Christian Churches: International Perspectives (Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2008) 50.

SHELLEY SIEMENS JANZEN holds a BA from Columbia Bible College and a graduate diploma from Regent College. She is currently completing a Master of Arts in Theological Studies at Regent College in Vancouver, BC, where she lives with her husband, Tony.

Book Review

Valiant or Virtuous? Gender Bias in Bible Translation by author Suzanne McCarthy and eds. Jay Frankel, Christy Hayhoe, and Ruth Hayhoe (Wipf and Stock, 2019) Reviewed by Michaela Miller In the last years of her life, Suzanne McCarthy dedicated herself to offering a helpful and accessible text on the sometimescomplicated topic of gender and Bible translation. She passed away in 2015 as this book neared completion, and members of her family brought it to completion and publication.1 McCarthy approaches this important matter from an egalitarian perspective in a systematic and thorough way, addressing not only the biblical text but also the history behind many translation trends. While she presents a significant amount of technical information, readers with or without academic training in biblical studies or Bible translation will find this book understandable and informative.

cbeinternational.org

Section 1: Gender Attributes Valiant or Virtuous? Gender Bias in Bible Translation is organized into four distinct sections, the first being Gender Attributes.

McCarthy dedicates four chapters to this discussion, each addressing a different adjective used for both men and women throughout the Bible. She notes that the same descriptors are often translated differently for men and women, providing a detailed survey of each word and its usage. In these chapters, rather than only offering a list of where each word appears in the biblical text, McCarthy provides a wealth of background material that illuminates the historical development of translation practices and traditions regarding each term. While her treatment of the biblical

PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022 • 29

text is thorough, she broadens her study to include other historical texts and languages, introducing further insights to support her arguments for equality in translation.

In ch. 1, McCarthy explains that the Hebrew word chayil is classically translated “strong” or “valiant” in relation to men but is almost exclusively translated “virtuous” or “excellent” in relation to women (4–5). She goes on to provide historical background, surveying varying translations, ancient and modern, and building the case for truly “valiant” women. Chapter 2 includes a similar treatment of the Hebrew word commonly translated “beautiful.”

In her discussion of wisdom in ch. 3, McCarthy opens with a concise explanation of grammatical gender and its bearing on translation (23). Building upon this information, she conducts a thorough study of how wisdom is personified through the OT. She then offers a unique perspective on Eve and her desire for wisdom, casting new light on the various interpretations of this story, as well as an examination of women who displayed wisdom in political settings throughout the biblical text.

Chapter 4 launches with an extensive study of teshuqa, commonly translated “desire” in Gen 3:16. McCarthy presents a wide range of information regarding the difficulties of this Hebrew word and how it has been translated throughout history, as well as how varying translations affect our understanding of Eve and the fall in Gen 3.

Section 3: Gender Terms

Section 2: Gender Roles

The final section is entitled Gender of the Divine and is unfortunately incomplete, for the editors opted not to add to the author’s work after her death. Chapter 14 contains a discussion of a gender-neutral term meaning “the Eternal One” used in French translations and the historical setting in which it arose.

Says McCarthy, “French Protestant and Jewish Bibles all translate YHWH as L’Éternel” (170). Chapter 15, though incomplete, begins an analysis of God as mother, including comments on a few ancient texts which refer to the Holy Spirit with feminine pronouns.

The second section of the book, Gender Roles, consists of chs.

5–7. In these chapters, McCarthy couples her study of the biblical text with examples of Christian women who worked outside of traditional gender roles in groundbreaking ways. She also interacts with the opposing views of notable complementarians, carefully explaining and countering their arguments.

In ch. 5, she discusses the phrase often translated as “help meet” or “helper . . .” in Gen 2:18–20 (ezer kenegdo), noting that this phrase has frequently been translated in a way that subordinates women.

She makes the case for including “champion” or “defender” when translating this phrase, and she encourages us to consider how our understanding of various women throughout the Bible might be altered by this translation.

In ch. 6, McCarthy explores the word commonly translated “seed” and its relationship to women in the biblical text. She illustrates how an accurate understanding of this word in its contexts makes women and mothers essential as ancestors and founders of God’s people. She then discusses the Hebrew word sometimes translated “fathers,” explaining that “ancestors” is more historically accurate.

McCarthy turns her attention to women as providers for their families in ch. 7. She focuses on 1 Tim 5:8 and the ways it is often mistranslated to give the impression that only men are meant to be providers. She also notes the many times that masculine pronouns are unnecessarily included in translations of the biblical text, drawing attention to how this practice directly excludes women.

Throughout this chapter, McCarthy carefully addresses the ideas and arguments of prominent complementarians by exploring the implications of their views and analyzing the resulting problems and pitfalls.

30

• PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022

In the third section, McCarthy turns her attention to gender terms.

In chs. 8 and 9, she addresses the use of masculine plural words, such as “brothers” and “sons,” to refer to groups that contain both women and men. She gives an overview of the controversy of translating such words inclusively (e.g., “brothers and sisters,” “children”), dialoguing with dissenting views. In both chapters, she thoroughly explores the linguistic and historical support for inclusive translations as well as the effects of excluding women, both past and present.

In chs. 10–12, McCarthy discusses words and phrases in both Hebrew and Greek that have often been translated “man” or “every man” when “human,” “person,” or “everyone” are more accurate options. She offers a wide study of word usage in each chapter, carefully constructing her argument for inclusive translations of these words. As in other chapters, she is careful to address opposing views and explain the weaknesses of those views, both linguistically and exegetically. The final chapter of this section reviews words that have sometimes been translated as “manly” or “be manly” (e.g., Josh 1:9, 1 Cor 16:13), but which McCarthy argues should more accurately be translated as “courageous” or “be courageous,” especially in relation to women.

Section 4: Gender of the Divine

Conclusion Suzanne McCarthy has offered a unique and valuable resource for egalitarian readers who are interested in the nuances of gender in Bible translation. She not only provides extensive information about the biblical text itself, but also enters the ongoing conversation by interacting both with translations throughout history and with current dissenting opinions. In her thorough examination and explanation of this topic, she demonstrates why gender inclusivity in Bible translation is not only reasonable but is vital for an accurate understanding of the text.

Notes 1. The book’s front matter gives more information about Suzanne.

See more of her writing at http://powerscourt.blogspot.com and http:// abecedaria.blogspot.com.

MICHAELA MILLER earned a master’s degree in New Testament from Emmanuel Christian Seminary and studied linguistics, translation, and intercultural studies at Johnson University, both in eastern Tennessee. She is affiliated with the American Saddlebred industry, both as a competitor and as an equine physical therapist.

cbeinternational.org

CBE INTERNATIONAL (Christians for Biblical Equality) CBE International (CBE) is a nonprofit organization of Christian men and women who believe that the Bible, properly interpreted, teaches the fundamental equality of men and women of all ethnic groups, all economic classes, and all age groups, based on the teachings of Scriptures such as Galatians 3:28.

Mission Statement CBE exists to promote the biblical message that God calls women and men of all cultures, races, and classes to share authority equally in service and leadership in the home, church, and world. Our mission is to eliminate the power imbalance between men and women resulting from theological patriarchy.

Statement of Faith • We believe in one God, creator and sustainer of the universe, eternally existing as three persons equal in power and glory.

• We believe in the full deity and the full humanity of Jesus Christ.

• We believe that eternal salvation and restored relationships are only possible through faith in Jesus Christ who died for us, rose from the dead, and is coming again. This salvation is offered to all people.

• We believe the Holy Spirit equips us for service and sanctifies us from sin.

• We believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, is reliable, and is the final authority for faith and practice.

• We believe that women and men are equally created in God’s image and given equal authority and stewardship of God’s creation.

• We believe that men and women are equally responsible for and distorted by sin, resulting in shattered relationships with God, self, and others.

Core Values • Scripture is our authoritative guide for faith, life, and practice.

• Patriarchy (male dominance) is not a biblical ideal but a result of sin.

• Patriarchy is an abuse of power, taking from females what God has given them: their dignity, and freedom, their leadership, and often their very lives.

• While the Bible reflects patriarchal culture, the Bible does not teach patriarchy in human relationships. cbeinternational.org

• Christ’s redemptive work frees all people from patriarchy, calling women and men to share authority equally in service and leadership.

• God’s design for relationships includes faithful marriage between a man and a woman, celibate singleness and mutual submission in Christian community.

• The unrestricted use of women’s gifts is integral to the work of the Holy Spirit and essential for the advancement of the gospel in the world.

• Followers of Christ are to oppose injustice and patriarchal teachings and practices that marginalize and abuse females and males.

Envisioned Future CBE envisions a future where all believers are freed to exercise their gifts for God’s glory and purposes, with the full support of their Christian communities.

CBE Membership CBE is pleased to make available, for free, every Priscilla Papers article ever published. In addition, find the full archive of CBE’s magazine, Mutuality, and hundreds of book reviews and recordings of lectures given by worldrenowned scholars like N.T. Wright, Gordon Fee, and more!

Find it all at www.cbeinternational.org.

CBE Board of Reference Miriam Adeney, Myron S. Augsburger, Raymond J. Bakke, Michael Bird, Esme Bowers, Paul Chilcote, Havilah Dharamraj, Gordon D. Fee, J. Lee Grady, Joel B. Green, David Joel Hamilton, Fatuma Hashi, Roberta Hestenes, Richard Howell, Craig S. Keener, Tara B. Leach, Gricel Medina, Joy Moore, LaDonna Osborn, Jane Overstreet, Philip B. Payne, John E. Phelan Jr., Ron Pierce, Kay F. Rader, Paul A. Rader, Ronald J. Sider, Aída Besançon Spencer, William David Spencer, John Stackhouse, Todd Still, Ruth A. Tucker, Cynthia Long Westfall, Cecilia Yau. PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022 • 31

CBE International

Non-Profit Org. U.S. POSTAGE PAID Jefferson City, MO Permit No. 210

122 West Franklin Ave, Suite 218 Minneapolis, MN 55404-2451 Forwarding Service Requested

cbeBookstore providing quality resources on biblical gender equality

New in CBE Bookstore! Visit cbe.today/bookstore and browse new resources.

PREORDER

1 Peter: A Commentary Craig Keener Leading New Testament scholar Craig Keener, one of the most trusted exegetes working today, is widely respected for his thorough research, sound judgments, and knowledge of ancient sources. This commentary on 1 Peter features Keener’s meticulous and comprehensive research and offers a wealth of fresh insights.

32

Tell Her Story: How Women Led, Taught, and Ministered in the Early Church

1-2 Timothy & Titus: The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, Volume 14

First Nations Version: An Indigenous Translation of the New Testament

Nijay Gupta

Philip H. Towner

Terry M. Wildman

Women were there. For centuries, discussions of early Christianity have focused on male leaders in the church.

But there is ample evidence right in the New Testament that women were actively involved in ministry, at the frontier of the gospel mission, and as respected leaders.

Gupta brings these women out of the shadows, shining light on their many inspiring contributions to the planting, growth, and health of the first Christian churches.

Questions about the nature of Christian leadership and authority, attitudes toward wealth and materialism, proper responses to cults, the role of women in the church, and even the validity of the institution of marriage are not new. In this commentary Philip H. Towner explains what each letter meant to its original hearers and its application for us today.

• PRISCILLA PAPERS | 36/4 | Autumn 2022

Consulting Editor First Nations Version Translation Council The First Nations Version (FNV) recounts the Creator’s Story—the Christian Scriptures—following the tradition of Native storytellers’ oral cultures. While remaining faithful to the original language of the New Testament, the FNV is a dynamic equivalence translation that captures the simplicity, clarity, and beauty of Native storytellers in English.

cbeinternational.org